Read this and weep. What if it was you? This is what happens with an entirely empty leader, who couldn’t even define the term Empathy. What if this storm happened in your town?
Sent from my iPad
Libertarians (the Republican Freedom Caucus included here) need to more carefully reflect on likely Trump outcomes. Libertarians are being made fools of by Trump, who is more a despot than any previous president, and as such, a true anti-libertarian. But the problem goes deeper, into the very heart of libertarianism.
Libertarianism is one of the giant ideas in political philosophy.
Current proponents believe, for example, that charity (giving welfare) should be entirely voluntary, that indiduals should be encumberered by as few rules, laws (and taxes) as possible, just enough, presumably to prevent chaos, and that the key principle of all government action (the less government action, the better) is to expand “individual” liberty.
Yet in all of history, it is hard, perhaps impossible, to cite an actual precedent, that is a nation,state, group, or collective organized under a pure libertarian regime.
It is one of those pure ideas, of a “perfect” organizational “political” structure, which we can analogize to the platonic notion of an “ideal” (though Plato was far far from a libertarian).
The hard truth is that, while even if we can formulate and think of a perfect circle, we cannot manufacture and realize a perfect wheel. (Just like we cannot man-make a perfect libertarian government structure- in fact, even the term “perfect government structure” is an oxymoron). There will always be defects, small though they may be, threatening the wheels’ ultimate failure in the real, “non-ideological” world. And failure safeguards, and failure remedies have not been adequately addressed by libertarian philosophers/economists, or libertarian leaning politicians, or those voting for them.
And these defects, in the real natural world, are never going to be static. In this world, defects will always expand their presence, like weeds in a garden, and counter-balancing them will always create repercussions, themselves requiring additional counterbalancing. Humans have created their own rule sets to counterbalance (think 10 Commandments, tribal customs and ceremonies, social morays, and yes, even laws).
The current libertarian political argument is thus always going to be about matters of degree. And this is the core problem. Matters of degree often fall into the realm of personal opinion.
Matters of degree also shift with the times, they are in flux, resulting in a perpetual change cycle.
Another intransigent problem is this, wholly embracing a “pure” libertarianism, how do we get from A to B, that is from “here” to “there”?
That is, how move from our current world political structure to a libertarian world structure. Keep in mind that partial structures will forever be unstable.
And this begs the question: how is it possible to get to a libertarian world led by elected leaders, which, in a democracy, requires a majority rules regime? Would not the vote and rule of the many, inevitably repress the freedom of some few?
And finally, is it not possible, even inevitable, that a “partial” libertarian regime (the only kind that is practically attainable) would morph out to either dictatorship or total anarchy? Think of it like a gyroscope encountering pebbles on an actual ground surface. First stumbling to the right, than to the left, between the poles of yin and yang, periodically crashing down entirely (into the Hegelian anti-thesis) before its rebirth yet again.
The truth is that America and earth’s civilization in general, is stuck in a cycle of change, a Hegelian universe, moving see-saw-like between the social-political extreme polls of totalitarianism and anarchy, yang changing into yin, and than back again. Mercifully Americas’ constitutional system has been relatively successful at balancing these extremes. It is only this balancing that can insure America’s longevity.
Libertarian proponents, while they may not actually be Trump lovers, are enablers, and as such have adopted a devastatingly dangerous posture. Trump operates out on that extreme poll which, in the end, will destroy any semblance of libertarianism, not to mention democracy. Trump is the means by which the anti-thesis is now occurring.
(Here is a perfect example of anti-libertarianism, quite frightening really). After Trump’s visit to North Korea, Trump expressed admiration for the way Kim-Jong Un is treated by North Koreans. trump said “Hey, he is the head of a country and I mean he is the strong , head…don’t let anyone think anything different. he speaks, and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same.” Of course Trump later tried to take the statement back saying “I am kidding, you don’t understand sarcasm”. Yes we do. When it comes off the top of Trump’s finisteride infected brain, we need to really worry.
And we are not Trumps’ “people”, we are free people under a fought for constitution. We must not let Trump take back his statements so easily, as they reveal him for what he aspires to be.
Kim publicly murdered (with an anti-aircraft gun) one of his staff for dozing off during a Kim speech. A sane person would not kid about that.
Sent from my iPad
Trump Picks Mitch McConnell’s Brother-In-Law, Gordon Hartogensis, To Lead Pension Agency
Experts say the choice to lead the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. wasn’t based on qualifications.
Please see our comments below article.
President Donald Trump has picked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s brother-in-law — a man with apparently no government experience and unclear qualifications — to lead a Department of Labor agency responsible for current and future pensions of about 1.5 million people.
Ethics experts questioned the choice, with one suggesting the nomination was granted on a “who you know rather than what you know” basis.
The White House announced Monday that Gordon Hartogensis had been tapped to head the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. He was described as “an investor and technology sector leader with experience managing financial equities, bonds, private placements, and software development.”
The announcement failed to list a current job for the nominee, and did not mention that Hartogensis is the brother-in-law of McConnell and his wife, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. Hartogensis is married to Chao’s sister, Grace Chao.
Amazing. Trump just nominated Mitch McConnell & Elaine Chao’s brother-in-law to lead the nation’s pension agency. The White House announcement doesn’t even list a current job for him & WH won’t answer questions. Below, his announcement vs. a typical one >> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-15/trump-nominates-mcconnell-brother-in-law-to-lead-pension-agency …
— Christina Wilkie (@christinawilkie) 9:12 AM – May 15, 2018
According to his LinkedIn page, Hartogensis has managed his family’s trust for seven years. He previously served as the CEO and co-founder of software company Auric Technology, his profile says.
Hartogensis, according to The Washington Post, has no apparent experience in public service and his understanding of PBGC’s mission is unclear.
The PBGC, which helps to sustain payments on single-employer and multi-employer pension plans when pension funds fail, is currently facing a widening, multibillion-dollar deficit. According to Bloomberg, the agency’s multi-employer program, which backs pensions operated jointly by employers and unions, is expected to become insolvent by 2025.
“The White House’s process for naming and vetting candidates is flawed,” Scott Amey of the Project on Government Oversight told the Post on Tuesday in reaction to Hartogensis’ nomination. “This seems to be another example of who you know rather than what you know.”
An unnamed White House official pushed back against the suggestion that Hartogensis was anything but qualified, telling CNBC that his experience as an investment manager “makes him uniquely qualified to run the PBGC.” Continue reading
Opinion | Trump’s Dream Come True: Trashing Obama and Iran in One Move
Thomas L. Friedman
May 15, 2018
President Barack Obama invited President-elect Trump to the White House after the 2016 election. Since taking office, President Trump has counted as successes his undoing of Obama-era initiatives.CreditStephen Crowley/The New York Times
My wife is building a language museum in Washington (I’m its vice chairman), so people often send her funny examples of word play, including a list of mixed-up idioms from oxforddictionaries.com. Among my favorites: “Don’t judge a book before it’s hatched.” “Every cloud has a silver spoon in its mouth.” “It’s not rocket surgery.” “You can’t teach a leopard new spots.” And one that perfectly describes President Trump’s approach to every one of Barack Obama’s policies, including his nuclear deal with Iran: “We’ll burn that bridge when we come to it.”
And that’s my subject for today. Trump, by taking a hard line on Iran, drew some needed attention to Iran’s bad behavior and created an opportunity to improve the nuclear deal. But to do so would have required Trump to admit that there was merit in the deal Obama had forged and to be content with limited, but valuable, fixes that our European allies likely would have embraced.
Instead, Trump pushed for the max, torched the whole bridge, separating us from Germany, France and Britain, undermining the forces of moderation in Iran and requiring Trump to now manage — on his own — a complex, multidimensional confrontation with Tehran.
Color me dubious that a president who has not been able to manage his confrontation with a stripper, or prevent leaks in his White House, can manage a multifront strategy for confronting Iran and North Korea and trade wars with China, Europe and Mexico.
Obama’s view of the Middle East was that it was an outlier region, where a toxic brew of religious extremism, tribalism, oil, corruption, climate change and mis-governance made positive change from outside impossible; it had to come from within. By the end of his eight years, Obama was skeptical of all the leaders in the Middle East — Iranian, Arab and Israeli — and of their intentions.
It made Obama a policy minimalist on the Middle East: keep it simple and focus on the biggest threat. That meant joining with Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China to keep the most dangerous weapons — nuclear weapons — away from the most dangerous bad actor there — Iran. By lifting sanctions on Iran as part of the deal, Obama hoped Iran would become integrated into the world and moderate the regime.
The latter did not happen, but the former did. Iran agreed to tight restrictions on its enrichment of nuclear weapons-grade materials for 15 years in return for an easing of sanctions. Two years in, Iran has abided by the restrictions, says the International Atomic Energy Agency.
“It was a transactional deal that kept Iran’s latent nuclear capabilities latent — not a grand bargain, not a transformational breakthrough encompassing all of Iran’s objectionable behavior,” said Robert Litwak, an expert on the Iran negotiations at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The deal never covered Iran’s regional aggression or its ballistic missile program.
By contrast, Trump’s team is made up of maximalists. They want to limit Iran’s ballistic missile program, reverse its imperialistic reach into the Sunni Arab world, require Iran to accept terms that would ensure it could never ever enrich enough uranium for a nuclear bomb, and, if possible, induce regime change in Tehran.
But Trump has left many key questions unanswered: Who is going to take over in Tehran if the current Islamic regime collapses? One thing we have learned from the Arab Spring uprisings that toppled their leaders is that in almost every country the alternative to autocracy turned out not to be democracy, but disorder or military dictatorship. If Iran, a country of 80 million people, was to go the way of Syria, it would destabilize the entire Middle East, and refugees would pour into Europe.
It is true that Iran has projected its power deep into the Arab world. But that was not because of money it got from the nuclear deal and sanctions relief, as argued by Trump & friends. It was because of the weakness of the Sunni Arab states and their internecine fighting, which created power vacuums that Iran has filled with its network of Shiite proxies. That’s how Iran today has managed to indirectly control four Arab capitals: Beirut, Baghdad, Damascus and Sana.
Is Trump going to use U.S. forces to push Iran back? No. Does he have Arab forces to do so? No. And now, does he have European allies to do so? No. So how exactly is this Iranian tide going to be reversed?
To his credit, Trump has drawn attention to Iranian misbehavior in ways the Europeans never have. Israel gets censured for implanting settlements deep into the West Bank. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates get censured for contributing to the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. But the Iranians have gotten away with murder, mass murder, at home and abroad — with virtually no censure.
Iran’s clerical regime has stifled one of the great civilizations, preventing so many of Iran’s youth from realizing their full potential, and mercilessly jailing and killing the regime’s opponents. In Syria, Iran’s special forces and its mercenary recruits — Hezbollah militiamen from Lebanon and Shiite hired guns from Central Asia — have helped President Bashar al-Assad perpetrate a ruthless genocide against Syrian Sunnis, including the use of poison gas, in order to maintain a pro-Shiite, pro-Iranian dictatorship in Damascus. Millions of Syrians have been made refugees with Iran’s help.
A column last month in the Lebanese daily Al-Nahar, titled “Hizbullah Resettling in Syria,” by Ahmad ’Ayyash detailed exactly how Iran, with the help of Hezbollah, has engaged in ethnic cleansing in Syria: “The aim … is changing the demography” of Syria by settling Iranian-backed Shiite militiamen “from Afghanistan, Lebanon and other countries in the region … to fill the demographic vacuum” left by the hundreds of thousands of Syrians who have fled their civil war.
Good for Trump for calling Iran out, but he still needs a strategy to translate his pressure on the country into sustainable gains. “Strategy without leverage is feckless,” noted the Carnegie Endowment’s Karim Sadjadpour. “And leverage without strategy is reckless.”
Trump should have kept it simple, too. Rather than scrapping the deal, he should have told the Europeans that all he wanted to stay in the deal were three fixes: 1. Extend the ban on Iran’s enriching of uranium to weapons grade from the original 15 years Obama negotiated to 25 years. 2. Europe and the U.S. agree to impose sanctions if Iran ever attempts to build a missile with a range that could hit Europe or America. 3. The U.S. and Europe use diplomacy to spotlight and censure Iran’s “occupations” of Syria, Iraq and Lebanon.
Europeans likely would have jumped at that deal. It would have maintained a united Western coalition to contain Iran’s most important threat and it would have created a huge fight inside Iran between moderates, who would have been tempted to accept the revised deal to avoid a re-imposition of sanctions and to get Trump off their back, and hard-liners, who would have rejected it. All the onus would have been on Tehran, not Trump.
What a shame. Just improving on what Obama started would have greatly advanced U.S. interests — a 25-year assurance, with intrusive inspections, that Iran could not suddenly build a bomb. And it would have left us arm in arm with our closest allies, rather than us now threatening to sanction their companies if they trade with Iran.
But Trump wanted to crush both Obama and Iran, and so he trashed the whole deal. Well, as the oxforddictionaries.com blog on mixed idioms would tell him: Donald, “You’ve opened your can of worms, now lie in it.”
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
Let us say that you own and run a highly successful (and dearly valuable to you) business. Your children, and even grandchildren are taking some interest in it too.
1. Would you be comfortable being bought out (giving up ownership and control) largely in return for an uncollateralized note? And in particular, an uncollateralized note from the purchaser, Donald Trump, or any business where he has full control? Check the box:
2. Would you be comfortable giving up virtual total control of your company for a 4 year period to Donald Trump, or any business where he has full control? Check the Box:
B, No: ________
2. Can you please email us your vote, simply cut and paste to your email with your answers.
Can you also pass this survey to any Trump voters you know. We will report out the results of this survey. Our email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Of course the original letter from Dr. Bornstein, was a farce! Like everything else about BOS Trump.
One of the Trump “storm troopers” actually broke into Trump’s dostors’ office and took Trump’s medical records! If you recall, Trump did not allow the release of his medical records (like his tax returns), as presidential candidates typically do. Instead, we got a bizarre letter from his doctor (Bornstein) where the doctor stated “unequivocally”, that Donald Trump “will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency”. Now we learn that this statement was actually dictated by Trump. This whole sad episode is worth a read.
But it is not funny. Clearly Trump lied, and “covered up” these most important credentials, that is credentials that would have revealed his physical and/or his mental fitness to be president. Would you want to hire anyone, once it was revealed that they lied and covered up critical facts about themselves that would impact their ability to perform the tasks that were required?
Yet another tactic to disquise cluelessness, for a finisteride clouded brain.
What could be simpler. Simply watch fox network shows from time to time and note the advertisers. Don’t buy their products or services and tell everyone you know about your action. For example, I used Expedia to book hotel and plane reservation, no longer now. There are plenty of other choices.
Consider this, why would an advertiser pay money to advertise on a show when the ad itself will delete customers? Radio and tv advertising is expensive and only moderately successful anyway. If it served to actually repel more customers than it attracted, an advertisers’ response would come very quickly indeed. The Fox show followers, prospective targets of an advertisement, are only some fraction of an advertisers’ current customer base. If all others who object to where Trump and his cohorts are taking our country, and who coincidentally are in the advertisers customers base, and the advertiser risked losing any/all of that group, things will change very quickly.
Follow the dollars and you will be amazed how quickly things can change.
Our friends tell us that we are preaching to the choir. And we can’t help agreeing with them SO LET’S FIGHT BACK! How? We always say follow the money. It seems that various Fox talk shows love Trump and have given him and his enablers a generous pass for behavior and policies that would have led any other president to be impeached by now. It’s past time!
So we started a list of advertisers, first, on Fox’s Lou Dobbs show. We intend to avoid doing business with all of them. But before that we will send them each a note.
Our first note sounded like this: “We are customers of yours, but now question our relationship, as you advertise on various Fox programs that promulgate, excuse, distort and rationalize Trump’s errant and damaging policies. We need to defend ourselves, our children and grandchildren from the damage this administration is doing to the country that we love. We have decided to no longer do business with entities that advertise on these poisonous shows. We did love your company, but feel this is the best way to have some impact, small though it may be”.
And here is the list so far. If you can help, email us additions as they occur. And please let us know about any responses to your email. Email us at: email@example.com
Expedia, Phillips Colon Health, PCMatic.com, PC Medic, Judicial Watch, Men’s Warehouse, Claritin D, Capital One Bank, Joseph A Bank, Nissan, Nissan, Alpha Romeo, TIAA, Quicken Loans, One A Day vitamins, Uline.
We are sure that the various Fox programs, such as Hanity, have another list of regular advertisers. We need some volunteers to monitor these shows too. It is past time to boycott all of them. Please help by adding to the list, which you can send us as you discover them, and we will add it to our published list. Maybe you can send a copy of our script above, or one other of your liking to these companies to help support the cause. Thank you, and the generations to come will thank you too.
Mar 26, 2018
The most troubling detail for all of us about this ….. we will get to that shortly…
The payoff of Stormy by Trumps’ attorney to cover up for Trump, was likely an election law violation. Further, it is hard not to see Trump colluding with his attorney on the payoff. Lawyers are unlikely to layout that kind of money absent getting reimbursement from somewhere. But will the sycophants and Trump supporters really care about that? That is “ordinary” business for Trump. So what?
No, the really shocking thing that should keep all Americans (and his sycophants) awake at night is a thousand times worse.
It is Trump’s willingness to take such a risk with a porn star (according to the person who would know, Stormy herself). In an age of AIDS, Trump didn’t even take the precaution of wearing a condom!
Betting that Stormy (or he himself) didn’t have AIDS is one unnecessary and stupid enough bet, either putting himself or her (and Melania too) at great risk. But isn’t that the kind of bets he is making for all of us?
America is now tied to him and his awful judgement while he leads us on a path with a palpable risk of destruction.
P.S. Now Trump and enablers are saying that Stormy’s claims are not “accurate”
I guess that means they are just mostly true, if not precisely true, right?
(Webster definition of “accurate”: exactly true, precise in all details.)
Sent from my iPad
Feb. 17: It’s not just the ease of getting killing machine weapons, but the mental conditions that lend a tendency to wish to use them, specifically depression treated by SSRI drugs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors), like Prozac et al. To be successful, drugs like these can make many who take them feel powerful, emboldened, angry, impatient, in many ways, the opposite of depressed. So in some adverse reactions, there is suicide (which is rage against oneself) and violence against others, who may have been perceived as the causes of one’s own depression, which then turns into anger, rage, and revenge.
The gun industry and the pharmaceutical industry are big money makers and big political contributors. So expect not much intent to get to the bottom of this societal scourge. As usual, follow the money.