All right. Last night on NPR I heard a guy saying we could not disqualify TFG on the 14th Amendment because this could lead to bloody battles when his followers will revolt and shoot a bunch of people. There are several reasons why I dont think civil war is imminent. First, the extreme polarization which the press constantly refers to may be a figment of the medias imagination. There may be one party of armed maniacs and a bunch of people who are not prepared to shoot anybody because of their red hats. Second, even if enough red hat people got together and decided to attack something, it is extremely difficult to decide what they could attack that would get them anywhere. Third, we have seen the strategic acumen of the red hat people on 1/6/21, and all their geniuses were AWOL. Even if they wanted to strike hard, they have no discipline, since their prowess is mainly in their imaginations. They think owning a gun or seven makes you a soldier.
Are we as polarized as the media think we are? There are certainly a lot of hot heads on the red hat side, people who want to use their guns to defend their country, but they, like all of us, are a little fuzzy on exactly who to shoot. But what about the blue hat side? I dont see a whole lot of blue hats calling for the arrest of people who wear red hats. We are perfectly happy to wait for one of them to break the law, and then arrest them. Were law and order types. So why do the media keep going on about it? Because its essential to their narrative structure that there be two sides in American politics: The liberal and conservative, the fiscally responsible and the spendthrifts, the red and the blue. Its essential that these sides be evenly balanced, because if they were not, that would be a whole different story, one the media are not prepared to tell. In short, theyre not in the business of reporting news, but of entertaining us with an endless horse race, pumped full of as much emotion as they can imagine. I only discern one army, when you really need two for a war.
Next, should the red hats decide on revolt, what will their target or targets be? All the blue state houses? I dont know about your governor, but I dont see Gov. Hochul standing still for this. There may be an exchange of fire, but governors have the National Guard, police forces, and the law on their side. A blue state strategy would call for a larger army than the red hats could field, imho. What if Gov. DeSantis just surrenders his state house to the red hats? Well, that will be a problem for Floridians, but it will galvanize the rest of the country, who may develop a powerful desire to shut the red hats down. Oh, of course, why dont they attack the U.S. Capitol building when congress is in session? Even with a traitorous President pulling strings, this didnt work. TFG wasnt serious, and some of his followers still havent got the memo, even as the 1/6 insurrectionists are escorted off to jail.
And lastly, we have seen no evidence that the red hat mob has any idea what a strategy is, much less any strategists. I have a feeling that any sergeant in the U.S. Army could do a better job of attacking a building than the entire red hat army. The Red Hats are deeply into shouting, roaring, clubbing, and decorating themselves with horned fur hats. I really dont see that they have an officer class to lead them. I thing Red Hats may be an army of self-anointed leaders, with no followers.
It would be so nice if we had the media on our side, led by a few stalwart journalists who would just explain to the country that a 2024 TFG campaign for the presidency just will not work. They would have to drop their rigid both sides are equal theme, and sail out into the uncharted seas of reality, but I bet they would find the trip invigorating.
I have been listening, when I couldnt avoid it, to TFG talk for nearly eight years now. Respectable news organizations, like NPR, always quote him with audio clips or have journalists quote him. So hes been impossible to avoid. And various linguists have attempted analyses of his rhetorical style, as though the secret of his effectiveness lies in the history of English prose. I think it makes far more sense to consider him as an artist, a practitioner of rap, in which poetry is intoned, choruses repeated (Lock her up!), and the object of his song to his people is emotional connection, not rational persuasion. This theory would explain why he keeps jumping from subject to subject, caressing each with some simple phrases, and moving on to his next topic. And all of the topics he touches on are sources of resentment for his audiences, or he provides new resentments loosely attached to the old ones. He modulates from: Not only are vaccines ineffective, to but theyre trying to force you to take them, to because theyre treating you like sheeple, not the smart people you are. Everything in TFGs speeches is subordinated to massaging his followers egos, to encouraging their resentments, and to whipping them into a fine froth of frustrated indignation. If DJT is rapping, he has a foolproof formula for fooling those eager to be fooled. The object is emotional connection, not reasoned persuasion.
I am not saying that TFG has studied real rappers and Hip-hop artists. Theres no proof he can concentrate long enough to study anything. His stream-of-consciousness dribbles are characterized by the rhythm of resentment interspersed with not-quite-actionable suggestions. He has a finely honed sense of what could get him arrested on the spot, and he always stops short. The classic example of this is his remark re: Hillary Clinton, that some second amendment types should [something] [something]. His other great suggestion, on 1/6/21, was that you have to fight for your rights/to stop election theft/to restore him to power. And the crowd took right off for the Capitol, ready to rumble. Intense suggestiveness coupled with avoidance of any responsibility are the hallmarks of TFGs style.
And exactly what was he trying to accomplish with the attack on the Capitol? Even as I observed, with no surprise at all, his abandonment of his followers to the tender mercies of the criminal justice system, it has been niggling at me that even he could not have expected that mobbing the Capitol would actually change the electoral vote count. He had encouraged his lawyers to whomp up a rickety theory as to how it could be done, but he had not secured the lynch pin of the entire structure: he had not gotten Mike Pence to buy in. Even if Pence had played along, there was no quorum after the mob invasion, to do anything at all. If the elected representatives had been brought (marched?) back to the chambers, they would have laughed at what Pence would have asked them to do.
So if TFG was not seriously trying to take over the government, what was he trying to do? The only answer that makes sense to me is that he was demonstrating his prowess at getting TV ratings. That is, he sent a large volunteer group of his followers to play a righteous segment of the voters who could not contain their feelings one second longer. He created a crowd scene with a few thousand unpaid extras to thumb his nose at the country which had rejected him. If this was his deepest motivation, he succeeded very well. But of course, his faithful followers have never understood that the object of TFGs presidency was to provide an emotional high for the president. Nothing to do with them or their lives at all. I think TFG never recovered from being the most popular TV reality show host for a while. This experience fed his ego, and only once since then has he felt the same sense of triumph: when his emotionally enslaved mob ran rampant through the Capitol. He sat in front of a TV in the White House lapping it up. Since this was not a TV studio, but real life, all the actors are liable for damages, and even the director will face contemptuous prosecutors from the Department of Justice.
We often blame the excesses of capitalism on greed, or excessive greed. The first thing we should note is that the capitalist system is motivated by greed. Capitalism is legalized greed. Capitalists perceive a need or a desire for various goods and services: oil and its byproducts, clothing, food, food served in restaurants, trinkets and gadgets, means of communication. They then set about producing them as cheaply as possible, and selling them for the maximum price the market will bear. And we buy: as much as we need, and, urged on by advertising, as much as we can afford, and sometimes more. As these processes play out, the capitalist, the owner, may make some very handsome profits indeed. But they couldnt make the profits without the market to buy their products. In America, our cultural norms tolerate all these desires, for profits by the owners, and goods by the buyers, as the norm, the best available economic system.
Greed, then, is a normal part of our economic system. Capitalism works in part by channeling everybodys natural desire for more than they have or need into orderly processes. There are stores, warehouses, catalogs and websites to display the goods, there are delivery services to get them to the buyers, and banking services to handle the payments. What our understanding of capitalism doesnt provide us with is a measure for deciding when a lot becomes too much. At what point does the need to keep a business running become destructive? When profits exceed 2%, or 5%, or 30% or 45%? Economists dont hold these discussions, because they have made it their business to discuss economic systems as though they were natural phenomena, like bird migrations, or the mating habits of whales, or the component planets in our solar system. Greed, as it is used these days, seems to be a moral accusation: those who are greedy have a vice, and they need to curb their desires for more for the good of their souls, and society at large.
There is an analogy with the controversy over abortion: the pro-life party accuses the women who seek abortions of being morally cruel to the innocent life they bear. Abortion seekers are really killing babies, seems to be their judgment. The problems arise when the pro-life party tries to control abortion by making it illegal. As soon as they try that, all the messy other realities of child bearing are exposed, and the laws dont work to save innocent lives. Anti-abortion legislation, doesnt work, but the pro-life party gets to enjoy their own moral superiority over the abortion seekers.
All of us capitalists get to feel morally superior to the owners, or at least the big owners: Big Oil, Big Pharma, Walmart, Big anything, when we call them greedy. But we dont ask for a change in the system, or even to control the system as its now practiced. It may be that we could keep the main components of capitalism, while legally controlling profit levels, or at least executive salaries. You will have noticed that any discussion of controlling profits is immediately labeled as redistribution of wealth and socialism, and the moral outrage turns to moral panic. And Ronald Reagan is elected President.
I would like to see Pres. Biden, Sen. Sanders, and of course Sen. Warren, develop a plan to curb some of the excesses of unfettered capitalism, just to prove that discussion is possible, and even healthy. The hard line capitalists like to pretend that any restriction of capitalism at all brings on Armageddon. What if it doesnt spell doom, but salvation?
Following are economic thoughts from an English major, so you can judge how many academic credits in economic subjects I have: none. Still, I listen to NPR reporting on economics all the time, and have life experiences too. So, here's my take on how loan forgiveness will affect the economy.
First, I'd like to point out that when most of us say we own a car or a house, what we mean is that the bank owns the house and the financing company owns the car. This is only fair: if we encounter financial difficulties, the financer can repo the car and the bank can foreclose on the house. When we use our credit cards, there's often less tangible stuff to repossess. How is the bank going to repossess the restaurant meal we charged to our card, or the vacation in Acapulco? The bank could try repossessing the stuff we bought, but the bank wants our washer even less than they want the house or the car. The banks' profits sink like a stone when they have to repossess something. What they really want is for us to pay off the loan at the interest rate we agreed to. That will make them happy. Or perhaps they want to sell our active loan and make a profit from that. The only thing I'm confident of here is that banks and financing companies do nothing that's not profitable.
Now, What does all this have to do with student loans? Student loans are used to pay for education. Just try repossessing somebody's education, and see how far you get. Banks are taking a bigger risk with financing education loans, because we really can't pick people's brains. That's only a metaphor for voluntarily sharing your thoughts. Meanwhile, to the economy at large, the average person is of primary importance, because 70% of our economy is powered by consumers. What this means is that the Economy needs us to spend as much money as we can possibly afford, so that all their industries will thrive and grow. When we hear it reported that the Economy "grew" by X percent, that means lots of us spent money on things we needed or wanted, and our noses are still above the flood waters of insolvency. So, it is our economic duty to spend as much disposable income as we can for the greater glory of Capitalism and Our Country.
Perhaps you can see where I'm headed with this: when we forgive educational debt, we boost the economy. A fellow DUer mentions that their son may be able to get married now with his lingering education debt forgiven. Wedding industry, take note! Mortgage industry and child product industries, celebrate! I am assuming here that Pres. Biden is going to pay off the students' debtors, the banks, from tax revenues. If this happens, truly everybody wins, especially the overstocked retailers who need to sell some stuff pronto.
Thank you for your patience, anyone who has been exercising it.
This is my idea: we can start a Petition for the Redress of Grievances to the American Patriarchy from American women and their friends. This would be sent to all three branches of the American government, i.e., the President, the Congress, and the Supreme Court. We request that this petition be printed out on paper and mailed via first class postage to each of the governmental entities addressed. Those of you who are familiar with the Declaration of Independence will note that I have stolen the name of the document directly from the DofI. This was quite deliberate, as the DofI was the informal opening of the Revolutionary War, and laid out in polite but clear terms, the number and kind of insults the American colonists had suffered at the hands of George III of England. Without redress.
My petition will be meant to put the government on notice that further action might be taken, but is not being threatened in this document. The only deviltry I envision for this document is the request that it be printed on paper, signed, and those pieces of paper mailed to the three branches of government. If the total outlay is three first class stamps, it will be a cheap Petition, but if enough people mail their envelopes, this will really clog up constituent mail desks in Washington.
The technology involved is deliberately low: anyone can copy, paste, and print the one paragraph that will comprise the Petition and the rest of the single page, and anyone can print off one copy, copy it, and distribute it to friends. Addresses of Congress, White House, and SCOTUS will appear at the bottom of the petition.
Democrats and Independents, who may be familiar with both the Declaration and The Constitution, may take notice of it. Republicans will not understand it at all, but they can probably get someone to explain it to them. I feel that at this stage, we should not threaten the formation of a political party or a voting bloc. If enough people sign on, the potential ramifications will be obvious.
Alrighty. Im going to start drafting the Petition. Anyone with an idea of what they would like to see included in it should speak right up.
In a previous post, (https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16673543) I mentioned this fact: that there has been no serious rebuttal to the feminist analysis of social structure on this planet. I can only conclude that there is none. Women exist as a caste, a social class, in all known societies, and there is no reason why this should be so. Preachers to slave holders in the American south used to justify slavery with various snippets from the Old Testament. Since we are supposed to be a secular society, Christian biblical misreadings arent available to prop up sexism.
So, on the premise that there is no justification for sexism, I would like to point out that women have enormous power that they have never used. Some women seem to think that the institution of marriage will fall if they vote differently from their husbands. To the contrary, the institution of marriage only stands because women assent to it. Children are born because women are willing to bear them. Infants are cared for, children schooled, and houses kept because women do this work willingly. Our current economy also cannot function without them. And I have not mentioned the political power women gained with the vote, which has existed potentially since then, but not yet in reality.
Women are the majority of the population, although they have not yet coalesced into a voting bloc. They could. Women are not yet convinced that their sheer numbers constitute decisive power in a democracy. Without their willing participation in the economy, the economy is crippled. Without their willing participation in civilization, there is no civilization.
I think it is time, and past time, for women to put the patriarchy on notice that women are aware, they are watching, and they are displeased with the progress being made on the legality of abortion, on bringing our economy to a skittering skid if not a halt, so we can save a faltering climate. Nature is like women; its not a voting bloc. But it definitely needs one.
I have one idea for how to get this effort under way, which I will suggest in another post.
I. Women shall have the undiluted right to bear, or not bear, any particular child. Women shall have an undiluted right to bear no children at all.
II. Any woman who bars a child shall have a primary right to medical and financial support for herself and her child or children from the outset of pregnancy until the youngest child reaches adulthood. Delivery of these services shall be a primary responsibility of the United States and every state into which children are born.
III. Neither the United States nor any state may compel any person to engage in a war without the support of a public plebiscite on the particular instance of war. The votes of women shall count as 1.5 votes.
IV. Only well-regulated militias maintained by the United States or any state for defense against aggression by any other state or nation shall have the right to keep and maintain arms. All applicants for private arms licenses shall demonstrate need, completion of a thorough safety course, and sufficient good character to use firearms responsibly.
V. Women shall have the undiluted right to finish what she was saying in any public setting without interruption by any man or woman. She shall signify that she has finished speaking by using any commonly accepted phrase, e.g., I yield the floor to Mr. Jefferson, or I yield the floor to any interested person.
VI. All women employed by a private or public entity shall be paid the same rate as any man performing the same duties. In cases of dissimilar duties, pay for all jobs will be determined by the level of importance they have in a humane society, e.g., child care, health care, elder care, truck driving, vehicle maintenance, and plumbing and heating repair all occupy a high level of importance.
VII. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United states or any state on account of sex. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Please excuse the uneven formatting--I used an old version of Word that I have never been able to talk to authoritatively.
The war in Ukraine is the most lopsided war imaginable, with the exception of the Viet Nam and Afghan conflicts, in which the power and might of the U.S. armed forces attempted to defeat a bunch of economically deprived guerillas, and were themselves beaten. Still, if this were a tennis match, Ukraine would be seeded 22nd and Russia seeded 2nd or so. And the outcome to this war in progress has been equally lopsided: in the PR arena, Pres. Zelensky has wiped the floor several times with his opponent, Mr. Putin. The entire world now (except for a couple of ayatollahs) thinks Zelensky is a hero and Putin a monster. I'm not saying these are inaccurate judgments; I'm saying Zelensky has a chance to win a much greater victory for the world than merely driving Russians out of his country somewhere down the line. Zelensky has a chance to make the very idea of war so ridiculous that no country will ever again engage in it for the sake of mere vanity. While he's waiting for enough planes to establish air cover for his country, Zelensky can be the first leader in history to defeat an army not by killing them, but by keeping them alive.
When the Russian army entered Ukraine, they were already half demoralized, on account of the number of lies they had already been told by their own superiors. Once they got into the country, many experienced the horrible sensation of being asked to kill people who were indistinguishable from themselves--people who could be brothers or cousins. And if these Russian soldiers are getting any information from the outside world, they have realized they are becoming more deeply involved in war crimes with every shot they fire. So, the average Russian soldier has few choices, none of them palatable. If he deserts, he'll be killed by his own government; if he deserts and doesn't get caught, he's still a war criminal, and sneaking out through Finland gets dangerous; and if he fights on, he just gets to hate himself more. Here's where Pres. Zelensky can offer these soldiers a better deal than they can get from their own country.
Zelensky, a savvy netizen, can get the word out that surrendering to Ukraine offers better benefits than they can hope for now from their own country. He can promise them that if they lay down their arms, he will not repatriate them until it's safe for them to go home. He can promise to negotiate for them at the peace talks, which will inevitably take place fairly soon after Mr. Putin is removed by his own government. Zelensky can ask for a complete withdrawal of all remaining Russian troops from the country of Ukraine, and amnesty for all Russian prisoners of war. He can give them work starting to clean up the rubble of apartment buildings and hospitals they have turned into rubble, and promise them comfortable living conditions as soon as they get the water and power on again in Mariupol. He can offer them the occasional dinner by Chef Jose Andres. Pres. Zelensky will know what to say.
This war, like many others, demonstrates how insane war actually is. Pres. Zelensky has a chance to speak directly to the army trying to occupy his country, and convince them to lay down their arms for a better future for all concerned. This hasn't been tried before, but if anyone can make this work, it's Volodymyr Zelensky.
Im thankful for living in an advanced society that can develop and test a vaccine for the current pandemic in, relatively speaking, no time flat. Im grateful for living in a rich country, where I can afford to live with some security, and where medical care is provided for me in my retirement. Im thoroughly grateful I dont need much medical care, but happily roam around doing what I want and buying small things, like gifts, and lamp components so I can pursue my latest interest, lamp repair. I am delighted with YouTube and its hosts of instructors, some of whom are very good, and all of whom save me money. I am grateful to The Internet, which provides me with information, news, ways of connecting with people across the planet, and a very efficient way to shop for stuff the local stores cant provide. The internet allows me to satisfy all curiosities, large and small. Im grateful for Dr. Anthony Fauci, who tells me whats going on without exaggeration, or editorializing, and with sympathy. Im grateful for every public servant and private scholar with integrity and good will. Im grateful to my local restaurants, who are still alive: Im happy to let one cook me Thanksgiving dinner, and others who let me take out lunch, as I try to keep the local economy alive without the budget Congress has to play with. Im grateful to all honest contractors and all their skills, who help me keep my house and car running (especially those who can persuade a car window to close despite its computer and little motor being dead). Library! My library is open!
At the end of this plague year, Im conscious of just how lucky I am, and how the forces of cynicism encourage us to forget we have all this, right this red hot minute: with a cure for the plague in the pipeline, but not here yet. Im delighted with the creativity being shown by people working on cures, and medical staff working on patients, and business people who want to stay in business, and artists who figure out how to sing and dance for cameras rather than people. These people cant be kept down, and when they reach the end of their lives, I hope someone will tell them how proud they should be of themselves.
Be proud of yourselves, people: the conditions for fighting the good fight have been crappy this year, but we have won a major battle, and many smaller victories are ours for the taking. Remember to take a medical person out to dinner as soon as that can be done safely. Get them wine, and toast them!
That is the phrase that we used to use to imply that it was impossible to know who was telling the truth when He Said one thing and She Said the opposite. The phrase was thought to be perfectly sufficient to explain the impossibility of getting to a truth that would stand up in a court of law.
In the old days the phrase was used to explain why a woman's accusation of rape would not be prosecuted, because there had been no witnesses. And to this day we keep asking for a higher degree of certitude than one man's or one woman's unsupported statement. Since the MeToo movement took off, we have accepted that the phrase by itself is insufficient to determine whether a predator can and should be prosecuted. Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein have been. We have accepted that there may be circumstantial evidence that could usefully be introduced to give credence to the accuser, and we have seen convictions and jail sentences.
But I want to point out that both male and female predators are usually not so stupid as to commit rape in front of witnesses. In many many cases, it will be impossible to produce a witness because there wasn't one. We will have to do justice, or just make up our minds, without the relative security of a conviction in a court of law. This is not the standard of proof that I would like to have before I make up my mind about an accusation against anyone, especially a prominent figure running for office, like Joe Biden. But I will not get that certitude, because there were, as usual, no witnesses.
What the MeToo movement says is that women can be believed, and should be treated as though they are telling the truth by prosecutors. But we cannot manufacture a witness if none exists. We have to accept the lack of witnesses, and get on with the job of making the best judgment we can. Many of us were deeply suspicious about Al Franken's accusers, and I am suspicious of Joe Biden's accuser. The existence of MeToo does not automatically guarantee that every victim will tell the truth all the time. MeToo was used against Franken, and is now being used against Biden, to the extent we feel we should automatically believe the accuser. In a court of law, we would be instructed NOT to automatically believe anyone, but to weigh all the evidence and arrive at the best judgment we can. Perfect certitude is impossible, but we have to keep our wits about us. We have to accept the fact that in many cases, one person is lying, and while the other is not. Life is messy, and politics recently has been messier. Let us continue to wade on through the mess with prudence, and caution, and care for the truth, even if we can't wrap it up in a tidy package handed to us by a jury foreman.
Profile InformationMember since: Tue Nov 16, 2004, 02:14 PM
Number of posts: 7,411