HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Koinos » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Apr 17, 2015, 08:43 AM
Number of posts: 2,789

Journal Archives

It is easier to start fires than to put them out.

It is easier to stoke anger than it is to quench it.

Anger out of control can destroy an entire society.

Politicians who exploit anger are like children playing with matches and gasoline. Nothing good can come of it.

I recall a Sanders supporter who said that O'Malley's problem was that he was not angry enough.

I also recall O'Malley saying that no great nation has ever been built on a foundation of anger and hatred.

O'Malley referred to Sanders as a "protest candidate." That said it all for me. Sanders doesn't build things; he tears them down.

We need to get past this divisive nonsense and do some healing and cooperation before it is too late.

I hope and pray it is not too late. It is hard to rein in anger once it has been unleashed.

They believe that crashing and burning the system will bring about Democratic Socialist Utopia.

Things don't work that way. Genuine and lasting reform requires hard work, persistence, and commitment from within the system.

When a computer is infected by a Trojan, you can't get rid of it by crashing the system and rebooting. You have to run anti-malware within the system. You need an operating system to fix the system.

You don't cure illness by killing the host and waiting for a resurrection. Revolution aimed at destruction doesn't work. It kills lots of people through social upheaval. Pragmatic reform, though it frustrates those who want immediate satisfaction, is the only effective method.

Bernie and his followers are trying to crash and reboot the Democratic party. That intend to make Democrats as divisive and divided as the Republicans have become.

Maybe Bernie is so old he doesn't care about the harm and anger and ill-will he has caused. Maybe he knows he will never witness the consequences of the havoc he has caused.

In my view, when this primary is over, Bernie should work on some heavy duty rebuilding of or "revolution" in his own character. He needs to be reminded of the words of T. S. Eliot ("Four Quartets": “The only wisdom we can hope to acquire / Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless."

Anger or hatred is a type of "malware" that infects the human person and the human community. We all need to take steps to eradicate it, and we have to begin mindfully within ourselves.

The Democratic party is a big tent.

It includes many different points of view. That is its strength. But children (old or young) with severe behavior problems are another thing altogether. In the end, Democrats have to support Democrats. Let the Republicans eat one another. That is not our way.

"Martin O'Malley Joins MetroLab Network as National Advisor"

"The government-research collaboration network has tapped the former Maryland governor to help build out its reach across the U.S."

The group announced the morning of May 5 that O’Malley will become a senior fellow with the group, which will first involve building an advisory committee to help connect the knowledge gleaned from city-university partnerships all around the country. The partnerships are aimed at not only developing technology that can help government work better, but sharing that knowledge so other cities can quickly adopt successful ideas.

O’Malley is a pretty natural fit for the role, said Ben Levine, interim director of the network — after all, one of his crowning achievements as governor and mayor was the development of programs aimed at gathering data and using it to improve the performance of government workers. At the Baltimore level, it was called CitiStat, and its results led to a wave of cities across the country adopting similar ideas.


She mentions the importance of John Dewey for her scholarly work.

I happen to know quite a bit about the philosophy of John Dewey, especially with regard to authoritarian versus democratic methods in education, the workplace, society, and government.

I think Jane should pursue further study with regard to the ideal and principles of democracy, which her autocratic behavior at Goddard and Burlington clearly opposed.


When the primary began, I believed that Sanders was the oldest but the least emotionally mature of the candidates. I saw him as a list of positions, with no real history of achievements. The essays he wrote in his thirties indicated a state of delayed adolescence. I did not write or believe or act as he did in my thirties. I was concerned about his tendency to lose his temper, not only with his staff, but also with anyone who disagreed with him. I was troubled by his lack of genuine long-term friendships with Democrats in the House and Senate. I was disturbed by his nurturing a life-long resentment of wealthy people. I also didn't see any indication in his upbringing or education of any solid religious or philosophical ethical grounding. Empathy and other-centered behavior seemed hard for him. I was worried that he had no real background in finance, economics, or law. That worry was confirmed in his interview with the New York Daily News and his apparent obliviousness to tax returns and campaign funding irregularities.

I believe that his present state of mind is delusional and "fantastical." He is behaving like an adolescent who wants his way, whatever the cost to others. He talks about who can or cannot beat Trump, but he has no clue how to run a country and how government operates (amazing naivete after so many years in the establishment). He has no talent for negotiation, for bonding with Democrats, for choosing the best means to bring about ends favorable to the common good. He cannot dialogue for more than a few minutes with people he disagrees with, and he would thoroughly botch international relations. He doesn't understand how banks work, taxes work, loans work, financial statements work. I find him incurious. I have researched many of his "favored agenda" more than he has. What does he really know about climate change, for example? Does he read? What does he read? Does he study? Does he learn from others? Where do his ideas come from, other than socialist texts in his college days? His health care proposal is a mishmash of unrealistic expectations of economic growth, broad and unattainable tax reforms, and a severely limited understanding of how the health care delivery system operates. His free college proposal is the same sort of product of oversimplified and unrealistic reasoning. Truthfully, everything looks simple to the uninformed. To those who really study existing problems, solutions are far more complicated and incremental. Except in fairy tales, no problems can be solved immediately and all at once.

Hillary understands stuff so much better than Bernie does. When she doesn't know something, she asks someone who does or looks for a source. When Bernie doesn't understand something, he makes up stuff. He is a list of positions, a lot of headlines with no genuine articles, a cover without a book, resentment without compassion, words without action, adversaries but few friends. His campaign is about a "future to believe in." But I don't see a dream we can all get excited about or an ideal we can strive for. I see "economic equality," but I don't see a dream with people in it. I don't see people working together for the common good, caring about one another, respecting one another, being kind to one another, loving one another, embracing common humanity. It is a cold vision of realigned money, and it is fueled by anger and resentment.

I prefer to avoid ad hominem fallacies, but Seth Abramson does have a strong Sanders bias.

There are many questionable statements in this Huffington Post article. It was written by Seth Abramson, who has a strong Sanders bias. See this Washington Post article alluding to Seth Abramson's strange claim that Sanders is winning the primary:


Many of Abramson's arguments are based on the same faulty premises that the Sanders campaign has asserted of late. Citing the Rasmussen poll's giving Trump an edge over Clinton is questionable and should raise a red flag. Stating that Sanders could win 22 or 23 of the final primaries is also greatly exaggerated. Moreover, the article also assumes, as the Sanders campaign has wrongly claimed, that superdelegates will be concerned enough about national polling to worry about Clinton's chances. This is based on Sanders' latest creation of wishful thinking.

There are many implausible presuppositions in this quote:

Clinton will have to start spending a great deal of money to fight a two-front war against Donald Trump, who’ll begin his ultra-negative primary campaign against Clinton immediately, and Bernie Sanders, who will avoid attacking Clinton directly but has nevertheless vowed to take the Democratic primary to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

Clinton will not have to spend more money. She will cut back on spending for the primary and pretty much ignore Sanders. She has done well in key states without spending half as much as Sanders. She may lose some primaries by cutting back, but I also believe that Sanders is running out of money, and the FEC will be knocking on his door for repayment of illicit contributions. Abramson also states that Sanders "will avoid attacking Clinton directly." If Abramson believes that, I have a bridge or two to sell him.

The author writes:

Sanders now has a greatly increased chance of winning all of the remaining Democratic primaries and caucuses.

I do not think so. Indiana was likely to go to Sanders, due to demographics; but most of the remaining primaries are closed primaries or primaries where "crossing over" to vote Democratic will be difficult and inconvenient. Finally, it is a stretch to believe that Republicans will change parties in great numbers just to vote for Sanders. It is just as or more likely that Republicans will not turn out to vote at all in the coming primaries, now that Cruz is out. Abramson's statement is simply not reality-based.

The author writes:

If that happens, it’s tough to say how super-delegates will view a Clinton candidacy, especially now that the latest national polling (Rasmussen) already has her down by two points to Trump.

If you notice, the author skips more recent and more reliable pollsters who give a big edge to Clinton over Trump in the general election. Rasmussen is a bad polling source (read "Republican-biased". Trump is his own biggest enemy, and that won't change. African-Americans, Hispanics, and Women are constituencies that Trump cannot win over. Again, Abramson is seeing things through the bloodshot eyes of Sanders. Superdelegates will not base their vote on the latest hypothetical polling of the general election. They will base their vote on Clinton's success in the primaries and upon their long-held strong working relationship and friendship with Clinton. Superdelegates endorsed Clinton because they liked her. They won't stop liking her because of a Rasmussen or Fox poll. They know she has been and will continue to be the best candidate for the Democratic party. They have become even more certain of this in the light of Sanders' hostility to the party, temperamental problems, questionable biography, and failure to fund down-ticket candidates. They see Sanders as a very bad bet.

But this is the real fairy tale in the article:

The Democrats will have a contested convention, and the Republicans won’t.

This is Sanders' "fantastical" talking point, simply accepted as plausible by the Huffington Post. See Rachel's and others' take down of this bit of mythical thinking. There will NOT be a contested convention, whatever Sanders or Abramson believes that means.

There are many more problems with the article.

Yep, that admiration still exists.

It is so tempting to try to force people to do what you "know" is best for them.

So you bully people, rather than persuade them through give and take dialogue.

Authoritarian personalities using authoritarian methods.

Democracy is not just a form of government. It is a state of mind, a way of life, an attitude of egalitarian respect and dialogue.

The same is true of authoritarianism. It too is a state of mind and a way of life, but it is characterized by hierarchical structures of commanding and obeying, superior and inferior, those who know "what is right" and everyone else.

The one true enemy of democracy is authoritarianism, whether in politics, religion, business, society, or in one's own habits of thinking and acting.

Capitalism and socialism are really economic arrangements, not political or social arrangements. Even business can be democratically structured.

To my mind, both Sanders and Trump are authoritarians. I don't see Hillary that way at all.

According to Bernie...

The only people who count are the minority who agree with him. All others, even if they constitute the majority, are "undemocratic."

Seems odd and contradictory to me to believe that democracy means rule by a minority of people who believe a certain Bernie way.

It sounds more like an autocracy or authoritarian form of government.

But the Democratic party has no obligation to let non-Democrats run as Democrats.

Or should we also allow "moderate" Republicans to run as Democrats? Why not let Greens and Libertarians run as Democrats too?

Where does the "trojan horse" movement stop? That's why I also oppose open primaries. Otherwise, we turn the "party system" into a "no-party" system.

People who belong to political parties have certain things in common. One thing they have in common is their commitment to work for the good of the party and all its members.

Someone who has bashed the Democratic party for thirty years has shown no such commitment.

I hate the game of golf. I think I will join a golf club and spend all my days and nights bashing the game of golf, critiquing members who play the game, complaining about the food, and openly questioning whether this club should be allowed to continue to exist. And I will also assert my right not to contribute financially to the club.

As I recall, the US constitution does not guarantee the right of any non-party member to run as a candidate in any party he or she chooses.

Sorry about the rant, but I believe that the Democratic party should be for Democratic candidates only.

The situation we find ourselves in, on the other hand, is that we have an anti-Democrat running as a Democrat. Nearly the entire party has been thrown under that candidate's bus.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »