Not That You Need My Approval

Rise up wild daughter of the woods

dance and romp

struggle and scream

kick and punch.

Persist. Resist. Insist. Consist

of and within your

own sweet and glorious dragon Self.

Kick at the stones and

split the sky into

one thousand shards of color

bellow in rage

fight

spin

sing.

Or don't.

Just rest and relax or do

whatever

it is your own unchained soul wants.

It IS your life. Live it by your rules.

This poet stands with you and your choices.

Another Set of Questions for Marshal, and Any Anti-Abortion Defenders

Marshal, on a recent post of his at his website (and no doubt, many, many other anti-abortion activists): "There is no need to abort. EVER..."

In addition to Marshal, he had amongst his supporters/commenters a man who said that people who defend the medical procedure of abortion were "Molech-worshiping ghouls."

These people are bona fide anti-abortion zealots. It really should NOT be a viable medical option, according to these men. My questions to their type...

1. So, you recognize that girls as young as ten (and younger, of course) have been raped, I suppose?

2. Do you recognize that some ten year olds have gotten pregnant as a result?

3. Do you recognize that a child's body is not prepared to give birth?

4. Do you recognize the trauma that would be involved in having a ten year old girl go through that process?

5. You're opposed to an abortion even under that set of circumstances?

6. If so, what sort of monster are you?

7. Would you truly sacrifice these children on the altar of anti-abortion worship?

"Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech,
for you must not profane the name of your God."

Leviticus 18

Molech-Worshiping ghouls, indeed.

+++++++++

"Just because a girl can get pregnant, though, doesn't mean she can safely deliver a baby. The pelvis does not fully widen until the late teens, meaning that young girls may not be able to push the baby through the birth canal.

The results are horrific,
said Wall and Thomas, who have both worked in Africa treating women in the aftermath of such labors.
Girls may labor for days; 
many die. 
Their babies often don't survive labor either.

The women and girls who do survive often develop fistulas, which are holes between the vaginal wall and the rectum or bladder. When the baby's head pushes down and gets stuck, it can cut portions of the mother's soft tissue between its skull and her pelvic bones. As a result, the tissue dies, and a hole forms. Feces and urine then leak through the hole and out of the vagina. Women with fistulas are often divorced and shunned. And young girls are at higher risk."

https://www.livescience.com/19584-10-year-birth.html

++++++++++

Carrying on, then...

Most people would grant that in my example of a pregnant 10 year old who is pregnant as a result of rape that abortion should be allowed. This includes, I believe, most anti-abortion thinkers

["The most widely accepted reason for performing abortions, with little difference in support depending on the timing, is when the woman's life is endangered: 83% think this should be legal in the first trimester and 75% in the third." ~Gallup]

They recognize that would be wrong to force that 10 year old to have that baby. Good for them. But why are they willing to make that exception?

Suppose, for instance, that instead of getting pregnant as a result of rape, that somehow magically that 10 year old suddenly had a two-year-old baby holding it in her arms, as a result of rape. Now she has a two-year-old. Would anyone anywhere support the notion of killing that 2 year old?

No. Of course not.

Why is that?

It's because most of us recognize there is a fundamental difference between a two-year-old baby and a two-day-old zygote or a 2 week old fetus.

Both are on the human life spectrum, BUT, the one IS indisputably fully a human indisputably deserving of a right to life, while the two-day-old zygote is not fully a human. It's literally a human zygote.

And that is a significant, significant difference.

8. Do you recognize that there are huge differences (especially/specifically in terms of any rights we might consider/a presumed right to life) in a two day old zygote, a three week old blastocyst, a five week old embryo, a ten week old fetus and a two month old baby?

9. Or do you think that, as far as rights go, that a zygote and a baby are pretty much exactly equivalent?

10. IF you think that a zygote and a baby are equivalent, do you think that all those people (the vast majority of us) who'd be supportive of the ten year old rape victim getting an abortion (if that was the family's choice) are monstrous to support such a case?

11. Do you recognize that probably most people would find the position that a ten year old rape victim being forced to have a possibly deadly pregnancy to be a monstrous position to hold? Can  you understand why?

12. If you think that a zygote and a birthed baby are the same (as far as a right to life is concerned) do you recognize that this is only an opinion that you can't prove, and not an established fact?

You Fool

Sorta long ramble here, but something to think about...

He said he was a self-made millionaire

"My father gave me a very small loan in 1975, and

I built it into a company that's worth many, many billions of dollars,"

Turns out the "very small loan" was, he said, $1 million.

Except that it turns out he lied about that.

He and his parents cheated on their taxes to give him millions of dollars

before he was an adult and

his daddy loaned him $60 million to start his business.

But THEN, he was a

self-made man

who built a company that's worth billions of dollars.

Except that it turns out he lied about that.

For a ten year period

the time he was "writing" his book about

the art of the deal

and boasting about how great a business man he was

he lost $1 billion

over a ten year period.

$1,000,000,000.

Lost it.

Mismanaged a billion dollars away.

In ten years.

I'm pretty sure I couldn't even spend a billion dollars

in ten years.

What would one buy?!

No, he was an awful business man during those years.

But he kept borrowing money and then

borrowing more money and then

getting more in debt and then

borrowing more money and then

when he got in trouble with his business being in debt

he'd go bankrupt

and get out of his debt.

All the while boasting (ie, lying) about his wealth and

using his boasts and privilege of wealth

to borrow more money and

get more in debt,

ultimately going bankrupt

six times

over 15 years

All the while boasting (ie, lying) about his great wealth and

using his boasts and privilege of wealth

to borrow more money

and get more in debt

and run for political office

based on his boasts (ie, lies, false claims, swindles, cons) of

what a great business man he was

(he wasn't)

and how wealthy he is

(we don't know, because he's very evasive about his money)

But as he was running for the office of president

he assured us he'd release his tax documents

so we could see where his money came from and

to whom he was indebted.

He didn't release this tax documents.

Refuses to do so.

Actively fights to keep them hidden.

This clever business man created a school and made

"millions"

(but we don't know how much because

Trump won't tell us)

off the school

which was eventually found to be a fraudulent university

and was shut down and Trump was sued over it.

At about the same time, Trump donated thousands of dollars to

Pam Bondi

who was in charge of deciding whether or not

to investigate Trump University for fraud/crimes.

Bondi and Trump said that there was no relation to that donation

and the fact that

she decided not to investigate Trump University.

At about the same time

Trump was found to have used his charity

A CHARITY

to enrich himself and his family.

The Charity, like the school, was

shut down as fraudulent

and Trump and his family were told they could

never run a charity again.

This man who was constantly in debt to the tune of

hundreds of millions of dollars

eventually started meeting with

Russians

to conduct

"business"

with them and various Russians have paid Trump

maybe hundreds of millions of dollars

we don't fully know

because Trump keeps his finances secret

and assures us we can trust this man

who cheated with his charities organization

and his university,

who was barred from being involved in charitable organizations,

who lied constantly about his wealth

who used his false claims about his wealth to get loans of

hundreds of millions of dollars, and

promptly "lose" $1 billion,

who has gone bankrupt

six times

in fifteen years

Who has used his wealth to raise

Large Gold TRUMPs everywhere he went

in tribute to his own name

and who built himself

Gold Toilets

on which to shit.

Who said to himself,

‘This is what I’ll do.

I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain.

And I’ll say to myself,

“Self, you have plenty of grain laid up for many years.

Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’

And he made himself merry

assaulting women

and boasting about it

and laughing about it

And used his money and privilege to

force his way into the rooms where

teen-aged girls

were changing their clothes

and he laughed about getting to

ogle half naked teen-aged girls.

Laughed about it on a public radio show.

And some might rightly note that God once said to a rich man

"You fool!

This very night your life will be demanded from you.

Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?"

and...

"Depart from me, you who are cursed, 

into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 

For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, 

I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 

I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, 

I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, 

I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/02/trumps-small-loan-from-his-father-was-more-like-60point7-million-nyt.html

https://themoscowproject.org/collusion-chapter/chapter-1/

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html

Invisible Man

Some quotes from Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man..."

I am an invisible man. No, I am not a spook like those who haunted Edgar Allan Poe; nor am I one of your Hollywood-movie ectoplasms. I am a man of substance, of flesh and bone, fiber and liquids – and I might even be said to possess a mind. 

I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me. Like the bodiless heads you see sometimes in circus sideshows, it is as though I have been surrounded by mirrors of hard, distorting glass. When they approach me they see only my surroundings, themselves or figments of their imagination, indeed, everything and anything except me...

I was never more hated than when I tried to be honest. Or when, even as just now I've tried to articulate exactly what I felt to be the truth. No one was satisfied...

I remember that I'm invisible and walk softly so as not awake the sleeping ones. Sometimes it is best not to awaken them; there are few things in the world as dangerous as sleepwalkers...

For, like almost everyone else in our country, I started out with my share of optimism. I believed in hard work and progress and action, but now, after first being 'for' society and then 'against' it, I assign myself no rank or any limit, and such an attitude is very much against the trend of the times. But my world has become one of infinite possibilities. What a phrase - still it's a good phrase and a good view of life, and a man shouldn't accept any other; that much I've learned underground. Until some gang succeeds in putting the world in a strait jacket, its definition is possibility...

Whence all this passion towards conformity anyway? Diversity is the word. Let man keep his many parts and you will have no tyrant states. Why, if they follow this conformity business, they'll end up by forcing me, an invisible man, to become white, which is not a color but the lack of one. Must I strive towards colorlessness? But seriously and without snobbery, think of what the world would lose if that should happen. America is woven of many strands. I would recognize them and let it so remain...

Everywhere I've turned somebody has wanted to sacrifice me for my own good—only /they/ were the ones who benefited. And now we start on the old sacrificial merry-go-round. At what point do we stop?

I denounce because though implicated and partially responsible, I have been hurt to the point of abysmal pain, hurt to the point of invisibility. And I defend because in spite of it all, I find that I love.

Reparations (Don't Run in Fear, White People)

I've been engaged in a dialog (if you can call it that... I raised points and asked questions and was met with insults, errant presumptions and no answers to the reasonable questions I was raising...) with some conservative folk recently on the topic of Reparations.

My position is that the US only officially apologized for slavery in 2008 and we've never (that I can tell) had a serious consideration of the notion of reparations for the devastating harm caused by the great evil of slavery (and the extension of Jim Crow laws that lasted until my lifetime! 1965!) to the people and their families affected by slavery/Jim Crow. That is, as far as I can tell, there has never been a serious congressional level researched review of the matter led by the black folks whose families have been affected by centuries of slavery and Jim Crow.

I note the surveys that say (depending on the survey and how the question is asked) that ~60-80% of black folks think that Reparations either ought to happen or at least be considered.

Consider: If a Jewish family had art in Nazi Germany that was stolen by Nazis and that direct family was killed off by Nazis, but descendants of that Jewish family had escaped and a great grandchild was to find out today that a great grandchild of the Nazi that stole their family's art still had that art, then it would be reasonable to expect that the art would be returned to the family from which it had been stolen. That wasn't to cast any blame on the descendant of the original Nazi thief... to say that they were to blame for the Holocaust or anything... only that to be just to the aggrieved family, it is reasonable that this debt should be paid.

Of course.

Reparations for the great evil of slavery is like that. It is, at the very least, a reasonable thing to be considered.

Of course, the easiest and best thing to have happened was that slavery never happened in the first place. The second best (least awful?) thing would have been to make Reparations in 1865, when it was much more clear and direct a payment to the injured parties.

That didn't happen and now, the question IS rightly muddled today.

Nonetheless...

...that we didn't do the right thing right away does not absolve us of the paying the debt that was/is owed, or at least considering the matter seriously and at the Congressional level.

+++++

I say all of that to say this... In that conversation I was having, one of the questions I was asking was simply, "Can we agree that a great evil was done and a great debt was owed?" Never answered. They could not even agree that slavery was a great evil. They DID say that if reparations were going to be paid, it should have happened back then (in ~1865). But it didn't.

I brought up the Jewish art scenario to see if they could agree that debts should be paid to descendants of the aggrieved, since the right thing wasn't done immediately. No answer.

+++++

I say all of that to say this: What they kept coming back to is the (on the face of it, ridiculously stupidly false) claim that the only reason people bring up the notion of reparations today is to intentionally divide and stir up bad feelings. I raised the question that we're talking about tens of millions (if not more) of American citizens who think the question should at least be considered... is it reasonable to assume bad intent on ALL those people's part? No answer.

I then pointed out that they are assuming "hurt feelings" or "division..." and I asked (and THIS is the central point I'm making here...), It will cause hurt feelings or division for whom? The majority of black folk and their allies who think the question of reparations should finally be seriously considered at the congressional level? No, of course they won't feel offended or divided.

No, the concern these white conservative men were raising is that it would cause hurt feelings/hard feelings/division amongst white people... they don't want their white feelings hurt.

But it's not about them.

I've been clear that the question of reparations is not to cast aspersions or blame upon white people today, people who never owned slaves. The question is, does the US gov't owe a debt of payment to the people (and their descendants) whose lives were devastated by the great evil of slavery... because it was US policy that allowed decades of slavery (following centuries of slavery prior to the US becoming a nation) and decades of the Jim Crow extension of oppressive harm to the families of black folk.

When I asked them whose feelings are being hurt by raising the question of considering reparations? Still no answer.

Of course, the answer is obvious (maybe not to them, I don't know... they wouldn't even acknowledge the question). These white men feel that if a concern makes them feel uncomfortable, they don't want to really hear the concern because it's "divisive."

It's the presumption of white privilege that these very same white men would insist doesn't even exist... even as they claim it! They could not even get beyond their emotional fears that it might hurt their feelings/cause "division" (to them) to recognize that the question is about black folk, the descendants of slaves and those harmed/oppressed by the great twin evils of slavery and Jim Crow.

That is why it is reasonable (it seems to me) to let the matter be taken seriously at the congressional level in an effort led by black folks to consider if reparations should be paid and, if so, how. There's no denying the evil of slavery and Jim Crow. There's no denying that a debt was owed, and a seriously grievous debt. There's no denying that a debt owed does not end at the death of those originally oppressed/harmed.

Let's listen to black folks. It's not OUR call to make, white folks.

Starling Dance

Sun lay low and gold,

mellow heat on an autumn eve

painting trees a rich coffee color.

A sudden tree explosion sends starlings

skyward, starward

into a flurry of songburst and wingplay

over and back

swinging loosely, easily, knowingly.

Synchronized and chaotic.

Beautiful black shadows dancing on an

alabaster sky.

Re: False Claims (this one's for Marshall...)

Sorry, I've been busy and hadn't had time to respond to your finally trying to answer the questions put to you. My letting you continue to comment does not mean you successfully/correctly answered the questions... Only that you made an attempt and we need to wade through your attempt.

DAN: "1. DEFINE "Enemy of the State/People."
MARSHALL: Originally, you offered no definition from Wiki, but only examples of how the expression has been used in history. The actual definition from Wiki is as follows:

"An enemy of the state is a person accused of certain crimes against the state, such as treason."

I'm good with this definition, though it's hardly comprehensive if it says "certain crimes" but gives only one example.
So, IS this your definition or not? It's not clear, but I think it is.

Moving on, then, an immediate question arises... "The press" has not been seriously accused of any "crimes against the state." None.

A. Do you recognize that reality?
Perhaps in an attempt to deal with this, you bobble around, saying...

All that is truly required for the expression to be appropriately applied is that it satisfies the definition regarding crimes committed against the state/people. But even there, the question is, "Would that be 'crimes' of a type codified by law, or 'crimes' in the sense detrimental acts of any kind?"

So, you are defining down YOUR definition of Enemy of the State/People to be "a group accused in a casual manner of some vague metaphorical "crime...", NOT an actual crime... Thus, if a person thinks that Trump's hairpiece is a 'crime against the state...' then TRUMP is an enemy of the state." Or, "If I think it's a crime for a media outlet to be biased in some way (some UNDEFINED way, since we're all unbiased to one degree or another,), then that makes one an enemy of the state..."

B. Is that what you're saying/doing? Watering down "enemy of the state" to the point where it means anyone you don't like of any offense can be reasonably considered an enemy of the state?
If so, the immediate problem arises that the phrase is meaningless. We are ALL "enemies of the state" in the minds of SOME group of people and thus, the term has no point, no meaning.

If the term has no meaning, then it remains a false claim. If we are ALL "enemies of the state" then NONE of us are enemies of the state. It's a ridiculously false claim.

Beyond that, this is not what "Enemy of the state" means.

Other follow up questions...

C. What "crime" is the media "guilty" of? Not being perfectly unbiased? No one is. By that measure, Fox News and you and Craig and Billy Graham are ALL enemies of the state. Is that what you mean?

D. By your measure, do you think Fox News is an enemy of the state? What's the difference? You appear to have no objective measure for what makes one an enemy of the state.
Marshall: To pretend that a media that can't help but spin stories to portray Trump in the worst light...indeed, they tend to spin stories to promote liberal points of view and have for some time...isn't detrimental to the people is to be complicit in the practice.
Here you appear to be defining "enemy of the state" as a media that is biased against Trump and, in YOUR estimation, portraying him in a bad light (what others would call portraying him accurately and HE makes his own self appear in a bad light because he is an awful, awful person, according to people across the political spectrum...)

E. Fox News was clearly biased against Obama. Does that make them an enemy of the state? Why not?
Your entire case appears to be based NOT on the meaning of the term Enemy of the State or People, but on you thinking it's okay to just make a claim that has no meaning and is not factual.

Again, the reality is that “the media” in all its forms has always been biased to one degree or another. Being biased does not make one an enemy of the state. And, if you were being consistent, then FoxNews would be an enemy of the state, as well, given your ridiculous definition.

It's simply a stupidly false claim.

I'm out of time but I'm going to go ahead and post this and give you a chance to respond, Marshall.

Progress Towards a Better World is Good (Of Course!)

It is funny (and by funny, I mean sort of pathetic-sad) to hear conservatives bemoaning progress and progressive ideals and realities. I recently was reading how one conservative was objecting to progress as an ideal... questioning whether we are, as a world, getting better.

Here's the truth: We are objectively getting better and making progress. Human lives are better now than they used to be.

People who are gay can live with less fear of being killed or beaten or imprisoned. That IS progress.

Women have rights to vote and work and make their own choices. They can choose to marry who they want. That is objectively progress. Women are objectively better off now.

By and large we no longer embrace slavery as an option. That is progress.
Our Wars no longer involve indiscriminate Slaughter or genocide. That is progress. People are safer.
We are objectively better educated as a whole.
Poor people have more options.
Our healthcare is better. We are living longer.
Transgender folks are no longer beaten or killed or harassed to the degree they were.
We have more places that Embrace religious liberty.
We DO have more rights and less infringements of those rights in more places.
More people (many more) are more literate.
My people are no longer slaughtered or threatened or imprisoned for not agreeing with the state religion as we once were. Thank God.

In just about every objective measure, we have made so much progress.

Yes, some religions that in the past used to have more "liberty" to oppress and shame and marginalize those who disagree with them no longer have that degree of "liberty." But that is progress as well.

Many researchers and thinkers have pointed to the data to support the notion that the world IS getting better, progressing to a better place.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sex-murder-and-the-meaning-life/201803/ten-ways-the-world-is-getting-better

For those who are insisting that our "progress" (as they might say it, in scare quotes) is not real or not worthwhile, they're just wrong. They're confusing being able to force and push their religion on others against their will as a backward step. Or perhaps they're just overwhelmed by what they perceive to be a flood of bad news, thinking that it's the norm.

That is their mistake. We do make progress/are living in a world that's getting progressively better in a huge number of measurable ways and that's a good thing.

For those who say that not all progress is good, I don't think they're getting it right.

Not all change is good. The change to a much more deeply engrained fossil fuel society and all the pollution and harm that results is NOT good, of course. But then, it's not progress. It's just change.

When people speak of making progress in the world, they are generally referring to Webster's third definition, "gradual betterment." Yes, there is the definition of progress as another step in a journey (and that journey could be good or bad), but that isn't what people mean when they speak of making progress in the world to a better place.

And I will note that not all progress is equally good or equally valid. 100 years ago, people with disabilities were often kept at home, hidden away or, worse, placed in horrifying institutions, locked away from "the normal people." That was, of course, a great immoral tragedy. Fifty years ago, that started changing, with people being deinstitutionalized and "allowed" to get out of their homes into "Day Programs..." That was an improvement, it was progress from the "bad old days" of institutionalization. But still, being isolated away from the world in what amounts to adult day cares to be kept safe, but contained is not really living.

Maya Angelou has a quote that is applicable here:

"Do the best you can until you know better. Then, when you know better, do better."

We know now that the better solution for adults with disabilities is not day programs, but community involvement to as large a degree as possible. Getting your own home is better than a group home. Getting out to volunteer at the library, to go to church, to clean the garden is better than a day program. Getting a job is better than being in a sheltered workshop (look it up, if you don't know).

The point being that just because the day program was not the best solution, it was progress and a positive change. And now, people are moving away from that to any even better, plugged into community life and THAT is positive change, progress.

Things are getting better. The data shows it. Believe the data. Believe reality.

And, for those fundamentalists (Muslim fundamentalists, Mormon fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, etc) who feel like things are getting worse because their views are no longer in the mainstream and, indeed, are considered harmful and bad, you just have to keep in mind that your loss of opportunity to oppress because of your religious views IS progress, too.

I'm a F***-ing Genius

Science tells me that I'm a genius.

https://en.thelaughbible.net/news/scientific-conclusion-being-forgetful-is-a-sign-of-very-high-intelligence/

and...

https://www.sciencealert.com/swearing-is-a-sign-of-more-intelligence-not-less-say-scientists

Which tells me that, not only am I a genius, but I'm getting smarter every year!

Hard to believe, but data is data.

Hypocrites and Scoundrels

You can't complain about Cohen's unreliability and dishonesty on the one hand and defend Trump (in spite of his well documented dishonesty and unreliability) on the other. Not, and be taken seriously.

Indeed, reasonable people and history will call you out as a defender of lies and atrocities. A hypocrite. A scoundrel.

They're saving a place for you on the garbage heap of history, GOP defenders of this administration. And, Lord willing, it won't be long.

On the Reasonable Opposition to this Current Administration

Some on the Right keep referring to opposition to Trump amongst liberals to be indicative of "Trump Derangement Syndrome," as if to say there were no rational, moral, just reasons to stand strongly opposed to this administration.

The reality is, of course, this is just not true. Disgust and concern about this particular president are reasonable, given...

* his unending false claims,
* his attacks on the press,
* his objectification and harassment and assault of women (all of which is based on HIS OWN testimony, he who boasts about bedding married women, ogling half naked teen-aged girls in a dressing room he used/abused his position of power and wealth to gain entry to, who boasts about assaulting women, grabbing them by the crotch and being able to get away with it because of his fame, wealth and power! These are his OWN words, not scurrilous unsubstantiated rumors),
* his famous loathing and distrust of reading, experts, scholars and science,
* his clear moral failings - from his self-confessed greed, to his cheating of employees, his cheating on his multiple wives, etc, etc...

None of these faults are secrets or hidden knowledge. None of this is made up attacks by liberals. Most of it is just based on his own words and boasts. And the fact is, it's NOT just liberals who note all these very real failings. Unknown numbers of conservatives have made the same observations... including prominent GOP and conservative politicians, promoters, supporters and scholars/thinkers.

The Wikipedia list of Never Trumpers runs into the hundreds of prominent conservative republicans who would not vote for him in the general election and who have opposed him, pretty strongly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/…/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_…

And here is a small sampling of what some of these conservatives have had to say about the fundamental unfitness for office of this man...

CONSERVATIVE George Will, on Trump...

"It is urgent for Americans to think and speak clearly about President Trump’s inability to do either."

"This seems to be not a mere disinclination but a disability. It is not merely the result of intellectual sloth but of an untrained mind bereft of information and married to stratospheric self-confidence."

Trump, who he says has a "combination of impulsivity and credulity" that makes him "uniquely unfit to take the nation into a military conflict."

CONSERVATIVE General Colin Powell, on Trump...

Powell called Trump a "national disgrace" and "international pariah"

"Yup, the whole birther movement was racist,"

"I don't know that he can do that [be a moral leader]... because right now that is not the way he is acting..."

On the media attacks. "How can a president of the US get up and say that the media is the enemy of Americans...?"

THE CONSERVATIVE Weekly Standard has called Trump...

“a serial liar,” “a singularly dishonest figure,” an egomaniac who can’t help boasting that his nuclear button is “bigger” than Kim Jong-un’s (or do his small hands just make it look bigger?), a policy ignoramus, an ingrate, an adulterer, a president distinguished by the “sheer volume” of his “crazy statements and actions.”

CONSERVATIVE Andrew Sullivan on Trump...

Sullivan saw America, a country that “has never been so ripe for tyranny,” following the same path, with Trump as the upper-class traitor rallying the envious, frustrated masses against the political establishment in order to make himself ruler. Sullivan is sounding a different alarm these days. The danger Trump presents is not fascism—he is too scatter-brained for that—but incompetence and buffoonery. By January 2018, in the same magazine, he was seconding Wolff’s warning of the White House’s “chaos and dysfunction” and comparing the President to a drunk driver lucky enough not to have crashed...yet.

"we knew that people in the White House had leaked it, in both an astonishing betrayal of confidence, and a clear attempt to warn the country of the unique danger this unfit president poses."

CONSERVATIVE Max Boot, on Trump...

"it’s time for President Donald Trump to be removed from office via the 25th Amendment because he is clearly “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

“I was outraged when he came down the escalator at Trump Tower, denouncing Mexicans as rapists and drug dealers, and my outrage has not diminished at all since.”

THE CONSERVATIVE Open Letter in opposition to Trump (there were at least two versions from dozens (~122) of conservative experts on foreign policy), on Trump...

"...we are united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency...

His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and un-moored in principle...

His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable...

His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combating Islamic radicalism...

his insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border inflames unhelpful passions, and rests on an utter misreading of, and contempt for, our southern neighbor...

He is fundamentally dishonest...

We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office." 

There was a second letter on similar themes that included...

“He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent Judiciary..."

The letter predicted that Trump would be the “most reckless President in American history.”

Asked in 2018 about that letter (written in the 2016 campaign), one of its signers has said...
“I think every word has turned out to be true, and worse.”
======
I could go on and on with conservative after conservative raising grave concerns about the basic unfitness for office of this con man. Of course.

So, for those who see and recognize all of Trump's very obvious failings and who have decided that the lies, the sexism, the racism, the cheating, the ignorance, the greed, the petty vindictiveness, the lack of experience and knowledge and just basic human decency... who see all that and have decided, "Well, I can STILL support him... all of those lines that he has crossed are not THAT serious that I couldn't still support him..." well, that's on you.

But I'm asking you to have the integrity to frame the opposition to Trump in an honest manner... people of good will from across the political spectrum have looked at these obvious reasonable, temperamental and moral failings and have decided that these are lines that MUST not be crossed and thus, we must oppose him and his agenda. NOT because of mindless hatred, but based on concern about these very serious moral failings. It simply isn't mindless liberal ill will and hatred, not in the real world.

NOTE: I'm just stating some reasonable points here, and I'm not looking for any real discussion (either from those who'd want to criticize the un-thinking conservatives who wrongly mischaracterize  the motivations of WHY people oppose Trump, nor from Conservatives. However, IF any conservatives wish to comment here, they may, but I request that they begin with acknowledging a few realities:

* Given the reality that this president regularly repeatedly makes false claims and attacks the media with false accusations, AND
* Given his deplorable behavior towards women and teen-aged girls...

It is not unreasonable to be strongly opposed to this administration. I understand the notion that there are some lines that ought not be crossed and, while I may disagree with the notion that Trump has crossed multiple lines, I recognize the reality that people from across the political spectrum DO believe this in good conscience.

Further, I will gladly concede the reality that many/most of these same people who think Trump has crossed multiple lines would ALSO oppose a Democrat who crossed the same lines. That is, if Ralph Jones is the next Democratic candidate for president and Ralph makes multiple false claims nearly every single day and of the sort of false claims that Trump has made AND if Ralph also made a habit of calling the press the enemy of the people AND if Ralph also laughed about using his wealth and privilege and power to behave as Trump has towards women and girls... IF all of that were true (or even part of it!), I recognize that Dan and those like him would also oppose this Democrat candidate, because for Dan and people like him, it's about the behavior, NOT about the partisan politics.

If you can agree with these basic realities, you may comment here.

If you can't agree with these realities, then you're not agreeing with reality and I don't think anything you have to say will further the conversation.

Power Corrupts... Men?

I've been doing some reading on the research about gender differences in levels of corruption in positions of power. There appears to be some smattering of evidence from different research that suggests (as many of us, no doubt, would suspect) that women in positions of power tend to have less corruption.

Again: Women in positions of power tend to have less corruption in the gov't (or office) than when men are in positions of power.

Important note: The research, thus far, does NOT appear to be saying that Women are Less Corrupt than men, or that women are inherently purer/better than men (although, that certainly has been my experience... just saying'!)... it's just noting that when women are in positions of power, there tends to be less corruption.

Other research I've read suggests that testosterone has an effect on tendencies towards corruption and, since men have more testosterone than women, they tend to be more corrupt. But that's not a conclusive finding, just some data that's out there and a theory that's floating.

I'll cite some of the readings I've done below.

It COULD be that, because women have had the option of being in positions of power, that they have just not yet grown as corrupt as men tend to sometimes grow and that, given time, they will become more corrupt. 

It COULD be that the women who try to gain positions of power are doing so specifically to promote our better ideals of human rights, freedom from oppression, etc (as opposed to running on themes of "shrinking gov't," or "reclaiming our way of life," or "tax relief for the wealthy, cuz... trickle down...," for instance).

We just don't yet know.

It sounds like the research is not conclusive. However, as the first article cited below notes, at worst, there appears to be NO negative effects that result from electing/hiring more women to positions of power in terms of corruption and, at best, there is an improvement.

Add that research and information to the reality that women and other minorities are way under-represented in positions of power and I say we have a compelling case to make 2019, 2020, 2021 and beyond some Years of Women (along with other Minorities!)

Get out and vote.

[Caveat: This does not need to be said for anyone with an adult level of reasoning or understanding, but OF COURSE, this does not mean vote for women, even if they have no great wisdom or appropriate expertise or moral character or honest, etc. Of course, no one would argue that, and only a simpleton would feel the need to bring that up, I'd hope... or perhaps, a charlatan.]

+++++++

"Importantly, the study does not find that women are “inherently less corrupt” than men, and found no correlation found between corruption and gender in other occupations. Some critics worry that as equality improves, women will get more corrupt as they become ingrained in the existing political structures and networks. However, the study found that there is a stronger negative correlation between corruption and women’s representation in parliament in countries with higher equality. Thus, the policy-making role is what enables women “to impact corruption,” not some inherent difference between the moral character of women and men.

Overall, the study shows that another benefit of promoting gender equality is reducing corruption in politics."

[The article also notes that the places with least corruption are also the places with most gender equity, so, go figure... Interesting reading, below... ~Dan]

https://www.representwomen.org/understanding_new_research_on_gender_and_government_corruption

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/women-and-corruption-perceptions-aside

“When people with high testosterone are given social power, they start to believe they are entitled to special treatment and that they can exploit others for their own purposes. This means they don’t think the rules, even the law, apply to them; they can play by their own rules...”

https://www.psypost.org/2018/05/testosterone-increases-narcissism-corruption-among-power-study-suggests-51203