I hear Trump supporters say they like him because he tells the truth and I am confused.
Is it the truth that John McCain is not a war hero? I can understand Trump not thinking so, because the nobility of spirit that led McCain to refuse to be released until all the men were free is so far beyond Mr. Trumps imagination that I am sure he cannot understand it. Are his supporters that dense as well?
Is it the truth that the Mexican government is sending people across the border? That is so ridiculous that I won't go into it any further.
Is it the truth that the border is dangerous? Statistics show that those cities are among the safest in the U.S.
Is it the truth that Perry wears glasses so he will look smarter? OK, I'll give you that one.
Point is, it is not the truth that these people like, it is the rudeness.
They are so frustrated by the demands of modern society: politeness, compromise, and just dealing with other people in general, that they are excited to see someone say all the rude, unpleasant things they have to keep to themselves. It is quite possible to tell the truth without being ugly, but they would not care for that.
That kind of behavior may be fun on screen, or for a short time during election season, but let free long term, it would be the end of civilization.
Fortunately, Mr. Trump will either self-destruct or just simply fade away before Nov. 2016.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Family or not
Josh Duggar is the latest example of a big problem with conservative thinking.
There is an old saying that conservatives like people and hate humanity, while liberals love humanity and hate people.
Translated, that means that the right gets along with people on an individual basis, but is very distrustful of anyone they don't know and haven't vetted personally.
The left likes people in the abstract, believes in universal human rights, etc, but doesn't like people in close contact very much.
From my experience this is true.
To express it another way, conservatives are very clannish.
Some friends of mine have been circulating a joke on FB about a friend being someone who would help you hide the body. Not particularly funny as a joke, and IMO, horrifying as a real life practice.
But many people DO look at the world that way.
If someone you care for gets in trouble, you 'stand behind' them all the way. You consider their needs and feelings, those of anyone else, anyone you don't know NOT AT ALL.
In their view, you can only count on your family and friends and you must stick by them NO MATTER WHAT.
Problem is, a civilization cannot work that way.
In a civilization, sooner or later you have to trust someone you don't know.
And you have to trust the law.
You can stand beside your friend by turning them in and then helping with their case and sticking with them if they are convicted. To help them break the law or get away with it later is to step outside of civilization and return to tribal times.
This is what the Duggars did. They ignored the rest of the world and handled it themselves.
Do they consider this a valid way to deal with the problem? Would they accept any other family doing things the same way? Or do they have an idea of how we should draw a line - this is a 'good' family, so they can do what they want and this is a 'bad' family, so they have to go through the justice system?
Perhaps the justice system doesn't handle these situations the best. Then we have to change that.
But allowing the 'good people' to have a separate set of rules isn't the answer.
There is an old saying that conservatives like people and hate humanity, while liberals love humanity and hate people.
Translated, that means that the right gets along with people on an individual basis, but is very distrustful of anyone they don't know and haven't vetted personally.
The left likes people in the abstract, believes in universal human rights, etc, but doesn't like people in close contact very much.
From my experience this is true.
To express it another way, conservatives are very clannish.
Some friends of mine have been circulating a joke on FB about a friend being someone who would help you hide the body. Not particularly funny as a joke, and IMO, horrifying as a real life practice.
But many people DO look at the world that way.
If someone you care for gets in trouble, you 'stand behind' them all the way. You consider their needs and feelings, those of anyone else, anyone you don't know NOT AT ALL.
In their view, you can only count on your family and friends and you must stick by them NO MATTER WHAT.
Problem is, a civilization cannot work that way.
In a civilization, sooner or later you have to trust someone you don't know.
And you have to trust the law.
You can stand beside your friend by turning them in and then helping with their case and sticking with them if they are convicted. To help them break the law or get away with it later is to step outside of civilization and return to tribal times.
This is what the Duggars did. They ignored the rest of the world and handled it themselves.
Do they consider this a valid way to deal with the problem? Would they accept any other family doing things the same way? Or do they have an idea of how we should draw a line - this is a 'good' family, so they can do what they want and this is a 'bad' family, so they have to go through the justice system?
Perhaps the justice system doesn't handle these situations the best. Then we have to change that.
But allowing the 'good people' to have a separate set of rules isn't the answer.
Saturday, April 18, 2015
Let Loretta Lynch alone
I take it as good news on the Loretta Lynch front that Reid is talking about a vote. I believe he wouldn't do this if he didn't know something we don't that give him confidence.
It's about time.
This game playing with her nomination is ridiculous.
The Republicans want to pass a repugnant bill, so they tie it to this important vote, hoping it will force the matter. Or not, but just hoping it will look that way to the people they are trying to impress. The bill has nothing to do with Lynch and they know it. And they need to drop this effort to extend the disgusting Hyde amendment, something that should be revoked with all haste.
Just another example of how low politics is - these days and all days really.
We have to hang in there, because the fight is never really over.
But hopefully, Loretta won't have to hang on much longer.
It's about time.
This game playing with her nomination is ridiculous.
The Republicans want to pass a repugnant bill, so they tie it to this important vote, hoping it will force the matter. Or not, but just hoping it will look that way to the people they are trying to impress. The bill has nothing to do with Lynch and they know it. And they need to drop this effort to extend the disgusting Hyde amendment, something that should be revoked with all haste.
Just another example of how low politics is - these days and all days really.
We have to hang in there, because the fight is never really over.
But hopefully, Loretta won't have to hang on much longer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)