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.
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Early thanks
This week we commemorated Columbus Day. It is called by other names in some places these days, but observed nevertheless.
I certainly understand the animosity towards the historical meaning of this day, but I think it should be celebrated anyway.
The European concept of the 'discovery' has long since been discredited rightly, but Columbus still began something wonderful, more wonderful really, than he could have foreseen.
Many progressives denigrate America, and it is true, it has never lived up to its image, but the image is worthwhile even so. To be realistic, we have to expect that we won't live up to it, because it is so lofty. THAT is the greatness of America - not that we are so wonderful, but that we set wonderful goals for ourselves, goals that were not set before.
The striving towards those goals is what makes us exceptional, if anything does. To be sure, many other countries can claim equal conditions to ours, equal freedoms and material conditions, but do they have a civic creed like ours?
This is where we can still lead if we want to.
It demands that we don't give in to our lower impulses - fear, greed, lack of care for those outside our borders - which one party seems to have decided to make catering to its raison d'etre.
It demands that we remain aware of what America means and how much it takes to be a real American.
Congratulations, Chris.
I certainly understand the animosity towards the historical meaning of this day, but I think it should be celebrated anyway.
The European concept of the 'discovery' has long since been discredited rightly, but Columbus still began something wonderful, more wonderful really, than he could have foreseen.
Many progressives denigrate America, and it is true, it has never lived up to its image, but the image is worthwhile even so. To be realistic, we have to expect that we won't live up to it, because it is so lofty. THAT is the greatness of America - not that we are so wonderful, but that we set wonderful goals for ourselves, goals that were not set before.
The striving towards those goals is what makes us exceptional, if anything does. To be sure, many other countries can claim equal conditions to ours, equal freedoms and material conditions, but do they have a civic creed like ours?
This is where we can still lead if we want to.
It demands that we don't give in to our lower impulses - fear, greed, lack of care for those outside our borders - which one party seems to have decided to make catering to its raison d'etre.
It demands that we remain aware of what America means and how much it takes to be a real American.
Congratulations, Chris.
Friday, September 26, 2014
The Prairie really is Grand
I had cause this week to feel really proud of my adopted state of Texas, thanks to two girls in Grand Prairie. They brought a painful episode of my childhood to a complete close with a gesture that I never got.
Like their classmate, when I was in school (junior high for me) in Florida, I was played a cruel joke by being 'nominated' for class princess. It was all a joke to those who put my name in, and none of them voted for me. Unlike their classmate, I had no one to stand up for me and show the bullies what being human means.
Like their classmate, I found much nicer people when I moved to Texas, and that is why I don't live in Florida anymore, even though a lot of my family is there.
Thanks, girls, you have helped people you don't even know.
Like their classmate, when I was in school (junior high for me) in Florida, I was played a cruel joke by being 'nominated' for class princess. It was all a joke to those who put my name in, and none of them voted for me. Unlike their classmate, I had no one to stand up for me and show the bullies what being human means.
Like their classmate, I found much nicer people when I moved to Texas, and that is why I don't live in Florida anymore, even though a lot of my family is there.
Thanks, girls, you have helped people you don't even know.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Thanks, but no thanks.
The one good thing I can say about W is that he has stayed out of politics since he left office.
Unfortunately, it seems his supporters don't have that kind of consideration.
While the man himself has not commented on Obama's current conundrum, they are digging up some words from the past and inserting them now.
In spite of the fact that he got us into this mess to begin with, and in spite of the bigger mess his officials made of Iraq once they got there, and in spite of the fact that he abandoned Afghanistan to go fight the war he really wanted, which gave al-quaida more time to work its will, they now insist he was downright prophetic in saying that we should not leave until every general said we were done.
Of course, they forget how much the American public wanted us to leave, how tired they were of the wars the Bush administration had gleefully committed us to. And they forget that Obama tried to leave a larger force, but the Iraqi government wouldn't agree to it.
We should have done it anyway, I guess.
Bush was willing to ignore the facts to go into war, and his supporters are willing to ignore the facts to make him wise and keep us there for who knows how long.
Maybe they should all take up painting.
Unfortunately, it seems his supporters don't have that kind of consideration.
While the man himself has not commented on Obama's current conundrum, they are digging up some words from the past and inserting them now.
In spite of the fact that he got us into this mess to begin with, and in spite of the bigger mess his officials made of Iraq once they got there, and in spite of the fact that he abandoned Afghanistan to go fight the war he really wanted, which gave al-quaida more time to work its will, they now insist he was downright prophetic in saying that we should not leave until every general said we were done.
Of course, they forget how much the American public wanted us to leave, how tired they were of the wars the Bush administration had gleefully committed us to. And they forget that Obama tried to leave a larger force, but the Iraqi government wouldn't agree to it.
We should have done it anyway, I guess.
Bush was willing to ignore the facts to go into war, and his supporters are willing to ignore the facts to make him wise and keep us there for who knows how long.
Maybe they should all take up painting.
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Garner/Garner
We lost two Garners recently.
James was a great loss. He was there all through my childhood, a steady presence and quite a favorite of mine, from Maverick to Murphy's Romance. He was masculine without being overbearing, laid back without being purposeless. I will miss him.
But he lived a long and successful life, and one imagines, had at least his share of happiness.
Eric Garner was another story. Whether he was selling 'loosies' or not, he had a hard life. He obviously was NOT successful and he had a lot of conflict in his short life. He had a history with the police and in the end, was horribly mistreated by the group of police which ended his life.
Let me point out, I am usually on the side of the police when a controversy arises. They have a hard job, dealing with the worst of humanity and putting themselves in danger many times and we need to give them some benefit of the doubt. Most of us don't know how we would react in their difficult situations, but certainly we would expect some understanding.
When the police tell you to drop your weapon, it is YOUR fault if you get hurt if you don't.
Unless you have reason to believe you are dealing with a bad cop, it is YOUR fault if you get hurt when you run from the police.
However, this situation is quite different. This man was accused of a minor crime, was unarmed and it is really a stretch to say he was resisting arrest. Even if he was, he was not violent and the number of police around him should have been enough to subdue him without an illegal choke hold and kneeing him to the ground for an extended period of time.
At the very least all of the officers involved should be disciplined, several of them should be fired and the legal case against them would be an easy win.
I am ashamed of them AND of the union who supported them. Unions have a duty to their members, but it DOES NOT extend this far. Not even close. Whoever the spokesman and decision makers are for this union are the reason that everyday people don't like unions. They are giving us all a bad name. Other unions should take a stand against them.
The best thing I can say is thank goodness we have the current administration in NYC, because under some of the recent administrations, this would be swept under the rug.
Godspeed, James and Eric.
James was a great loss. He was there all through my childhood, a steady presence and quite a favorite of mine, from Maverick to Murphy's Romance. He was masculine without being overbearing, laid back without being purposeless. I will miss him.
But he lived a long and successful life, and one imagines, had at least his share of happiness.
Eric Garner was another story. Whether he was selling 'loosies' or not, he had a hard life. He obviously was NOT successful and he had a lot of conflict in his short life. He had a history with the police and in the end, was horribly mistreated by the group of police which ended his life.
Let me point out, I am usually on the side of the police when a controversy arises. They have a hard job, dealing with the worst of humanity and putting themselves in danger many times and we need to give them some benefit of the doubt. Most of us don't know how we would react in their difficult situations, but certainly we would expect some understanding.
When the police tell you to drop your weapon, it is YOUR fault if you get hurt if you don't.
Unless you have reason to believe you are dealing with a bad cop, it is YOUR fault if you get hurt when you run from the police.
However, this situation is quite different. This man was accused of a minor crime, was unarmed and it is really a stretch to say he was resisting arrest. Even if he was, he was not violent and the number of police around him should have been enough to subdue him without an illegal choke hold and kneeing him to the ground for an extended period of time.
At the very least all of the officers involved should be disciplined, several of them should be fired and the legal case against them would be an easy win.
I am ashamed of them AND of the union who supported them. Unions have a duty to their members, but it DOES NOT extend this far. Not even close. Whoever the spokesman and decision makers are for this union are the reason that everyday people don't like unions. They are giving us all a bad name. Other unions should take a stand against them.
The best thing I can say is thank goodness we have the current administration in NYC, because under some of the recent administrations, this would be swept under the rug.
Godspeed, James and Eric.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)