02.24.22
by

My, How Far We Have Come

You know, back when I was kid, it’s been a few years 😉 we did the nuke drills. Yep everyone got under their desks, to save us from a nuclear attack. Which now that I think about it, I think it might have been better to die looking out the damn window, I’d rather take my last breath looking death in the eye and telling it to piss off. But anyway…

EVERYBODY hated the damn commies back then. There was no dissent. It was as sure as the sun coming up tomorrow. The commies were the bad guys. Pure evil. That’s just how it was. No one liked a commie.

Then I grew up a little bit. I realized that the commies were people, just like us in many ways. I learned not to hate commies somewhere between then and now. I learned not to hate the people, but to appreciate all of our desires, to live our lives, raise our children, enjoy the good things. I learned that the people were not necessarily a true representation of their government.

I also learned a lot about white privilege, the oppression of blacks, and the true history of us stealing this country from those who lived here before. I learned being gay wasn’t such a terrible thing that people thought it was. I learned religion and its adherents are full of shit. I learned a lot of things.

But I never thought I would ever see people in our society actively supporting communists attacking a neighbor. I’m somewhat stunned by the assholes at Faux News. I’m a bit shocked, at some of our politicians supporting the Russian invasion/war in Ukraine. Given the state of our politics, I guess it shouldn’t be such a huge leap. Idiots that the Republican party are…

I am however, not at all surprised at the orange idiot supporting Putin. After all, Ukraine refused to participate in the orange idiots election fraud, so he has an an axe to grind there. Also, Putin is the orange turds most favorite authoritarian dictator of all time. So no, that was no surprise. I pretty much expected that.

Our politicians though, actively and openly supporting this attack, is appalling. For our people, our Americans, to support the communists in a land grab war, this is unacceptable to me. For them to back our politicians support in this attack, is equally unacceptable. Even unbelievable. Any, who support this attack, or our politicans who also favor it, is tantamount to treason in my humble opinion. Communism has been an ever present threat to democracy for as long as I can remember and still is. How anyone can so easily forget that that is beyond my reasoning.

I don’t hate the commies anymore. But I sure as hell do not support their war machine invading Ukraine. Nor should anyone. But here we are. Our own fucking people supporting communism, and communist aggression. Supporting War. Supporting Death. Supporting Mutilation and Misery, from an authoritarian communist dictator. That Americans can support this? Despicable. I have words, but cannot speak them. I cannot believe what my country has come to.

54 thoughts on “My, How Far We Have Come”

  1. Once again, the “elites,” the “leaders,” are the one’s making trouble. Do you see “the people” in any of this kerfuffle? I sure don’t. Maybe the solution is to get rid of the elites.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • Yeah, it’s not the Russian people, it’s the Russian army, at the behest of the Great Commie, Putin.

      But what are “people” to do? Short of a revolution, there is no way to upend the elites. The laws we need to abide by, do not affect them.

      For instance, $$$ and/or political pressure, convincing a NY D.A. to back off on prosecuting the orange idiot. Prompting the resignations of the prosecutors. You, or I, can’t fight city hall. But someway, somehow, they got to the D.A. The elites have the power, the control, the $$, and influence to get what they want.

      We are powerless, short of a revolution.

      This reply was edited for a bit of clarity.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  3. Twitter is full of Tucker Carlson’s monologue being broadcast with Russian subtitles on Russian ‘State’ media. That might be a clue for the rest of us about whether or not one’s principles revealed in the monologue align more with supporting “government of the people, by the people, for the people” or helping this ideal “perish from the earth.”

    Just sayin’…

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  4. I don’t watch the news so this here is new for me. Fox News is really in support of Russia here? That is sickening, really. Why on earth would anyone do that?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • When you frame politics as either authoritarian OR populist, many people will side with authoritarian. So by framing the Democrats as ‘libtard populists’ the choice seems reasonable.

      What helps is to frame political issues in terms of founding values and principles, which are liberal and shared by citizens who uphold the Constitution. Those are the defined liberal values that defines what kind of democracy we have. Any politics that acts against these values is by nature anti-liberal, which means authoritarian (authority from someplace other than the individual). And this preference for authoritarianism includes those who support anti-liberal values in the name of ‘whatever’.

      So the core principle of liberalism is respect for the individual in law. That’s the base unit to create a ‘common’ law. As soon as one goes too far away from this central (centrist) common framework, one begins supporting various kinds of authoritarianism. (Of course, neither the Ctrl Left nor the alt Right simply don’t recognize just how authoritarian and anti-liberal their values are.) So that anti-liberalism is on both sides of the political left-right divide, and why both advocate for privilege in law rather than equality in law (the root liberal term for ‘common’ law).

      And so we see every institution today – including Fox News – racing each other to implement anti-liberal policies in the name of liberal values! It would be hilarious if not so very sad. So, if authoritarianism is the goal – and that’s where such partisanship demonstrated by almost everyone today inevitably leads us – then lots of people will prefer the one from the Right over the one from the Left.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      • Hello Tildeb.

        I did not mean to portray my words in an either/or scenario. It was mostly a thought that turned into a rant. That wound up getting posted.

        To be honest I am a centrist. An independent. I remain so. The problem as I see it, is the right has moved so far into crazy town, that it makes my centrist ass look liberal.

        I do not support the ideologies at either end of the spectrum, nor do I expect that the middleground is always the right position because it’s the middle ground. But realistically speaking it sure seems like a better place from where I’m sitting.

        I certainly agree it does look like authoritarianism is where we are headed. But if I had to choose one over the other right now, it would be the left.

        Nothing the rightwing nut brigade says or does makes any sense to my sense of reason. I do realize though, both extremes are not ideal at all. However I feel the left version of hell would have better control of itself and make better policies for all, vs. what I see in the right.

        So those lots of people you mention who would choose the far right version of hell, do you think they came to their position by using logic/reason/watching what they do vs. what they say? Or is it the propaganda machine that thinks for them?

        I know which way I’m leaning.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

        • I think many came to it because they think it’s the ‘better’ alternative. And just how sad is that? Talk about deplorable…

          I still think if ONE person would step forward and represent the view of 80% of us who aren’t batshit crazy Left or Right control freaks certain in our political allegiance and partisanship, that person would find very fertile ground in the electorate. I do not feel we have ANY political representation for the vast middle swath and so I think this frustration about not having a voice is going to fuel a tremendous populist backlash by the disenfranchised (what used to be a large middleclass now shrunken by global supply chains and who have zero hope of ever buying a home) against all these virtue pushers, be they evangelical or equity diversity officers. What that may look like depends on the populist, but I think it’s coming…

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          • I agree, the middle ground has become a vast wasteland with little representation. Too many are busy in the us vs. them camps.

            I also agree, we need a few individuals to stand up and make the cause for the middle ground. Or, one person with the right, captivating personality, might do it.

            Side note. I seem to recall you are Canadian? If I am right, are you speaking from the perspective of your politics there? If I’m wrong nevermind 🙂

            Either way, I’d love to see a rise of the middle ground. For better or worse.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

      • It’s really hard to tell who’s who. Reminded me of this from Werner Müller. “ Populists claim that they, and they alone, represent the people.” In that formulation, the key to understanding populism is that “the people” does not include all the people. It excludes “the enemies of the people,” who may be specified in various ways: foreigners, the press, minorities, financiers, the “1 percent,” or others seen as not being “us.”
        And so populism is authoritarian as authoritarian is populism. I think what you said makes it clear that few understand what they are actually embracing.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        • I didn’t make that connection. I know I’m not the brightest bulb in the variety pack 🙂 But you bring up a very interesting point.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

        • Exactly! That’s why the rise of ‘populism’ is a sign of deep social dysfunction in the political arena being used to bring someone (who assures the disenfranchised that he will speak on their behalf) into power without principle… ie a Donald Trump, a Bolsonaro, a Modi, a Chavez, a Duterte. When political parties fail to create platforms that deal with common issues and concerns but push some ideology, that’s when we see this backlash grow. And, as far as I can tell, the backlash is almost always destructive to the unity of the population. And that’s when we see people promote their partisanship as if it’s a sign of morality and/or virtue and frame the world through this dystopian view.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          • About 15 years ago it was apparent I could not support either party. I did step in and vote Johnson-Weld in 2016. Here we had two governors that were elected in states that were majority opposing of their own parties. They were just reasonable.
            It is shameful that the anointed candidates we have to choose from is really the best we can we can do?

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

    • Every once in a while, one should look at the news!

      I don’t care for it either, to be honest. But yes, Fox News supports Russia. The orange idiot supports Putin, and the rightwing nut brigade supports anything by Faux News, or the orange idiot.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

    • I wish I knew Jim. I think it has something to do with Rethuglicans standing against anything Biden/Democratic/or that lies within the realm of truth. They just “have” to be on the wrong side of everything to pander to their white supremacist base.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  5. Yes, SD, I’m Canadian and so I understand the Truckers’ movement, for example, as a sign of this same discontent and lack of political representation… but a discontent vilified not just by government and MSM but by other Canadians who believe the lies they are fed and swallow them whole because it fits with a narrative. And it’s highly destructive when so many who are discontented do much of the real work throughout society but who are most marginalized economically (you know, the same ‘heroes’ of the pandemic who worked in the public square through it all and for low pay).

    So belief in a narrative rather than any concern for what’s actually true is a sure sign that we’re dealing with deeply partisan people who don’t see the framing they impose on the world. I wrote back in 2016 that the Trump administration was the first ‘woke’ presidency BECAUSE it created a narrative and would not allow reality to adjudicate their commitment to ‘responding’ to that narrative. The same is true for political parties ALSO operating as if their narrative were true, but in exactly the same way rejecting and vilifying anyone who raises that legitimate concern. And that is across Left and Right.

    So yes, the middle needs strong representation but it also needs to respect reality over and above any ideological narrative. And far too many are forgetting how to do this, how not to succumb to the allure of narrative, of rejecting group framing, of criticizing anti-liberal policies. So the danger of a very angry and discontented populist movement arising under a ‘strongman’ grows ever greater. Whenever a government or law or school or business or service (ACLU, SPLC, NAACP) backs or doubles down on some anti-liberal principle, understand that regardless of country this is the green light for populism to thrive and partisan politics to grow ever deeper.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • “So yes, the middle needs strong representation but it also needs to respect reality over and above any ideological narrative.”

      This right here ^^^^^^ x1000!

      …but for me much of the issue is propaganda. Faux News, NewsMax, ONN, right wingnut radio, and even our political representatives, constantly espousing bullshit, misdirection, and lies. This is no longer a fringe response from a radical right, it is a well planned, intentional, ongoing attack on truth, reason, and reality itself. Whatever lie of the day, have you noticed they ALL latch onto it, then beat it into the ground? Every few days they toss out another lie and they all pile on. It’s an organized assault.

      Our democracy has, or may soon, have met its end, on the very free speech it advocates.

      The constant barrage of lies, yes lies! Can we stop calling it misinformation now? Anyway… this constant assault on reality is intentionally fabricated and let loose on our, not so able to think their way out of a wet paper bag, friends and neighbors.

      These people are constanly ginned up on the lies, primed for whatever action the right takes. And the right is consistently moving towards authoritarianism rule. It is just a matter of time before they try again. Jan 6 was a trial run.

      My genuine fear? It ain’t over folks. My genuine hope? I hope that I’m wrong.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  6. Jim, in Ontario the populist was the less popular brother of a crack-smoking BBQ-offering Toronto mayor who died. Like Trump did with the Republican Party, he took over the Conservative Party of Ontario, came out with no official platform other than “a buck a beer” and swept into power! The governance since has been all over the map with a preference to ‘help out’ economic development when irritating laws like environmental requirements got in the way. But overall, the guy wears his heart on his sleeve and tends to bluntly speak his mind in the language of the population. So Canada is by no means immune from US influence – good and bad. But I think the biggest difference is have an ‘official’ opposition whose job it is to criticize the sitting government and this helps keep Premiers and Prime Ministers somewhat in line and having to account. Also, various Committees HAVE to have representatives from other parties on them and so there is always SOME movement between them to get stuff done. I think the US would benefit tremendously from having something similar. But unlike the US, Premiers and Prime Ministers can ‘serve’ for as many terms as they are able. Sometimes that’s a good thing because policy is not necessarily dictated by an election cycle or time frame!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  7. SD, the narrative on the Right is quite obvious, especially when exactly the same phrase or talking point is used by all repeatedly. The narrative on the Left is a little more difficult to spot but consider just how factually wrong was the narrative pumped by every legacy media that wasn’t Fox about the Rittenhouse case. The warning should have been heeded by all media from the Covington high school student (Nick Sandman IIRC?) law suit ($275 million, later undisclosed settlement) against CNN just making stuff up to fit a ‘progressive’ narrative about racism on the steps of the capital (by this young religious privileged MAGA student, no less, against both blacks and natives AT THE SAME TIME… drool….!) and presenting it as if on site reporting of the facts. More disturbingly was how almost every other MSM immediately rebroadcast every lie as if indisputably true.

    This is certainly the case in Canada, where the trucker convoy was reported (by CBC) as truckers demonstrating against provincial road conditions! This was AFTER they made coast-to-coast appeals to drive on Ottawa. Anything that even remotely fit the narrative about these workers as foreign paid white supremacists wanting to overthrow the government was widely spread by all media legacy but anything true yet contrary to this narrative was conveniently ignored by all.

    It’s hard work trying to find out what’s going on, but trustworthy voices will emerge eventually, I hope. The trick is finding them in all the noise (and social media algorithms). But we know the truth is out there.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • Thank you for recognizing both sides of the MSM as fraudulent. It is really obvious to me; that maybe stems from how little I participate it’s easier to spot without having chosen a side.

      Like

      Reply

    • Yes, the other non rightwing nut brigade media outlets aren’t perfect. They have their narrative to follow/push as well. And they do.

      But generally speaking, as to non rightwing sources, you can at least pick a few seeds from the chicken shit. Whereas the rightwing fodder joints are just all shit.

      Sorry for the barnyard analogy, but if anyone has ever had chickens, you’ll know what I mean.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  8. Now here’s a lesson more of us need to hear AND take to heart:

    What would have been the situation today had Ukraine undergone full rearmament after the Orange revolution with a trained, modern, independent, and well equipped standing army, navy, and air force capable of self defense?

    Those who decry such ongoing investments and undermine the social commitment to armed capability have a real world effect. So here’s the question: Does that effect increase or decrease the probability of invasion from a strong neighbour who may not share a desire for peace above all else?

    How one answers that question matters. And so in the case of Ukraine, the lesson can be seen unfolding. And this has raised tension throughout NATO with an indisputable increase in the possibility of a real, live, shooting war. That’s the REAL world effect of seeking peace-at-all-costs.

    It’s a hard lesson.

    Like

    Reply

    • If Putin read Ukraine’s situation as it is, as justfiable for invasion, a military buildup in Ukraine would certainly have been seen as provocation. This likely would have unfolded sooner IMO.

      I don’t see a good avenue for the U.S. to take here. Had Ukraine been a part of NATO, we’d probably be there with UN troops to help. As it is, we really can’t do a hell of a lot, other than what’s been done. Unless of course we want WW Tres.

      I usually try to avoid “what if’s”… as speculation is the driving force behind MSM forecasts and crazy town news. I try to stick to “is” more than “what if.” But it is hard to avoid sometimes, I even go there more than I should on my own accord.

      I was out most of the day yesterday running the roads, and out late last night drinking a bit of bourbon with a couple of friends, and what little of me that’s here this morning, is attempting a response. C’mon coffee! Kick in.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      • Isn’t this ALWAYS the reason for excusing bullying: provocation by the victim? This tactic of blaming the victim is as old the hills, as the saying goes.

        But guess who doesn’t get bullied? The strong. The capable. The one who makes sure the real world cost is high enough to offset the imagined benefits. It works on the playground just as much as in real Polikics.

        Even Russia under Putin and in the time of the Clinton administration explored membership into NATO. (I suspect why that’s the reason Putin has had such hatred and targeted success undermining Hillary at every opportunity… not that the MSM noticed or cared.) But notice it took the Orange Revolution to switch Ukraine into having a government become interested in exploring that defensive option, and the same tactic of hand-wringing ‘provocation’ was used to help thwart it… the kind of typical Western hand wringing about Ukraine that wasn’t used when Ukraine was strong-armed by Western countries to sign over its nuclear arsenal to Russia. No hand wringing emerged whatsoever from the Give-peace-a-chance cohort. So the ‘provocation’ element seems to me to be decidedly one-sided. And that’s AFTER Chechnya, AFTER Georgia, AFTER Crimea showing the pattern of Putin’s very clear intentions.

        Like

        Reply

        • Hindsight always being 20/20, I do wish we had helped Ukraine more than we did before the assault. I really wasn’t sure Putin was going to go through with it…

          The handwringing is because it’s a delicate situation, we’re not talking about little Johnny losing his marbles to the kid across the way. An abundance of caution was/is warranted. We are looking down the barrel of a savvy, yet certainly a lunatic dictator, armed with plenty of nukes. You have to play this carefully. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve always been the kind of guy that believes in tit for tat. You hit me, it’s on. There will be incoming. But I’m also not a provocator, I ain’t looking to start anything, I’d rather take the easy way out “and” be able to walk away on good terms. Knowing Putins past and present, yes we know he is the bully. But he really has to punch us (or our dedicated NATO allies) in the nose, before we can react in kind IMO. Boldly and blatantly arming Ukraine would definately have started a shit storm, but that shit storm would have beeen of our making. As it is, this shit storm is Putins to own. And I’m sure that’s why our gov’t played it this way. Wherever it goes from here, we all know who started it.

          As we speak, it appears the Ukrainians are putting up some pretty good resistance. Germany has promised 1000 stingers. Which is very significant. Stingers take out sub 10,000 ft aircraft very efficiently. Making it difficult for choppers.

          If Ukraine can put up a good damn fight here, this could play badly for Putin. I think in some ways it already has. He’s getting protesters in his streets, and a lot of countries seem to be stiffening up a bit (if MSM news can be trusted.) The assaults progress appears to be slowed to some degree. The Ukrainians are hitting back.

          More power to them. I wish them well.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

  9. Oh, and has anyone noticed the little tit-for-tat China-Russia agreement between Putin and Xi this week? China’s media has been ordered to support Russia’s invasion on all platforms in exchange for Russia’s unqualified support for China’s claim on Taiwan. So much for sanctions.

    Like Ukraine, Taiwan isn’t part of NATO.

    So here’s the question: Are you willing to go to war over an invasion of Taiwan? (Who else makes computer chips or should such a trivial economic issue play any part in the answer?)

    On the 24th, there were ‘unconfirmed reports’ of 8 separate Chinese incursions by fighter planes into Taiwanese air space. (there has been a significant increase late last year and into this one of Chinese military flights into contested ‘zones’… as China builds islands and then claims 200 mile sovereignty around them.)

    Earlier in the week, an Australian P-8 Orion was lasered by 2 Chinese gun boats shadowing an Australian warship in the Arafura Sea just outside territorial waters (We can watch you but you can’t watch us). These lasers cannot be differentiate from fire-and-control lasers for guided ordinance; the difference is that the flight crew was targeted, which causes permanent blindness if it hits the eye.

    Anyway, again the point is raised: when a large scale invasion meets no collective armed resistance, are the chances of someone deciding an invasion is a net gain (where the benefits outweigh the costs in the invader’s calculations) increased or decreased?

    Like

    Reply

    • I should clarify: long term benefits and costs. We’re talking real Politiks after all.

      Like

      Reply

    • My answer is no. Like Ukraine, we should do what we can to help them. Short of direct involvement.

      I seem to recall hearing somewhere that Biden has proposed to begin work on making computer chips in country, because it does look like we will have a Chinese takeover of Taiwan sooner or later. Of course I expect all the usual R roadblocks. Ass backward bastards they are.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  10. Prof, you said, ” Propaganda rhetoric, fed to us, the masses over and over and over, ad nauseum… until the weak and non-critical give in.”

    I don’t think that’s right, Prof, about those people fooled into believing a story rather than respect what’s true because of being weak and/or non critical to swallow the narrative; rather, I think we don’t expect it from historically reliable legacy media. When all legacy sources seem to be in alignment, why would we question? Surely these journalists have some kind of professional standards of finding out what’s probably true, don’t they? You know… fact checkers and editors and yes, lawyers…

    That’s why the Rittenhouse case looms so large (I can understand why people might forget the bullshit Covington story, after all… fool me once and all that jazz); all legacy media reprinted the same story about Rittenhouse that had almost no relation with what was actually true (there’s the fool-me-twice aspect for those who care about what’s true rather than settle for what is believed to be true). And the number of reported stories like this is growing!

    This is why it’s SO important to realize this peddled narrative, this bullshit, this propaganda (what I recognize as faith-based belief in action), is not partisan (meaning it’s not one-sided). It standard media reporting now. Just as important, it’s also standard NOT reporting events that contrast the narrative!

    For example, In Canada the Emergency Act was implemented presumably because there was a national emergency of parked trucks and bouncy castles that had no violence. They were really annoying. So, naturally, the sky was falling. Implementing this The Act was widely reported as if necessary and reasonable when it was not. Clearly not… because nothing matched the requirements in the Act itself. But at the same time a fairly large group (2 dozen or more?) armed and masked men took over a construction site, threatened and drove off several dozen workers who honestly feared for their lives, and then proceeded to cause literally millions of dollars of damage. Not a peep from the press.

    Real mob; real arms; real violence. But because the target was a gas pipeline station, one can presume the attackers were the same political ideology of the federal party in power. So it took a week for this story to trickle out but was reported only in hindsight by ALL legacy media when people demanded to know what was going on with that. (The Act has since been rescinded) Oh… to be clear, there have been no charges for the committing of that violence but truckers were arrested and now we’re starting to hear of people getting fired from their jobs and are having their banks freeze their access to ANY money for donating 2 and 3 digit amounts to the the truckers’ movement. Seriously. Fired. Again, almost no reporting of this civil rights travesty by legacy media. And the banks are obligated under this legislation to seek out anyone associated and take ‘appropriate’ action. This gives the government the illusion of having nothing to do with silencing and punishing anyone deemed a ‘threat’ to their narrative upon which the justification of this extreme measure was used. Not the truth; the narrative.

    So I don’t attribute believing in the factually challenged narrative to a weakness of mind or inability to be critical; I attribute it to the intention of the legacy media to support the ‘correct’ ideology to whom the legacy media (who receives almost 2 billion dollar in federal subsidies here in Canada) beholden or aligned with Church of Whatever to keep their followers faithful to the One True Belief (the narrative). They’re doing the (Lord’s) work, donchaknow!

    I keep saying I don’t understand why atheists in particular aren’t better attuned to recognizing and criticizing the similar tactics and apologetics and partisanship and moral virtue of narrative believers, of narrative promoters, as we know are the same cornerstones of religious belief. What’s true ain’t got nuthin to do with it.

    Like

    Reply

    • Curious, tildeb … you make mention of incidents that weren’t given any (or little?) attention in the media. Yet you seen to have express details about them. I’m guessing your response would be along the lines that you read “other stuff” as well. But what I wonder about is what gives these other news sources as much or more credibility to you than those that you seemingly condemn.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  11. Well it goes back to my university training: always try to use source material. So I tend to follow a lot of writers regardless of affiliations like religion or politics or position. When something is mentioned that piques my curiosity, I follow it and see where it leads. Good writers usually have pretty good sources. So credibility is based on what seems to be the case from the facts gathered and how well these fit into the developing picture. Like everyone else, I’m certainly aware of MSM take on whatever, but TBH it’s usually what is NOT reported that raises my eyebrows and tells me this fits better with design than poor editorial overview.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  12. SD, I think we’re succumbing to seeing the world through the worst possible framing used that best promotes Republican interests: that there is no greater danger than our neighbour who disagrees with us and dares to vote for the ‘other’ party. They’re the WORST! This was the message Trump put out yesterday, that all NATO leaders are ‘weak’ compared to Putin who is ‘strong’ because of those who disagree with his version of authoritarianism.

    Seriously: Putin good, NATO bad. So he said something along the lines that our very worst enemies are here at home because they ‘make’ the US weak! And he received some applause.

    I know, it sounds crazy, but taking partisan sides (regardless of how righteous it may be) serves only the anti-liberal, only the authoritarian. That’s across the political spectrum. That’s what we’re supporting when we start to ‘see’ the world this way. That’ makes us part of the problem addressing real world concerns and common issues with any kind of shared or even united approach. Once we go along with this framing – and it IS a choice – then we help this division get wider.

    So I think the real problem here is believing in the partisan divide, which then justifies acting as if this divide were real. That’s a path that is only destructive no matter how ‘righteous’ we may feel participating in it. We gotta stop doing this. We really do face common problems and common enemies that require a common response. That’s how history will judge us.

    Like

    Reply

  13. The orange idiot, as most of us know, he is an idiot. However he is also a devious mf’er. He is still trying to drive the wedge of division down the middle of this country. I would take a pretty good guess that’s either because Putin wants him to, or he is so enamoured with Putin that he will polish Putins shoes, and do it as a favor.

    Either way, the orange idiot just won’t go away. I hope the orange bastard chokes on a cheeto, while sitting on the crapper, and goes to see Elvis. That would be the best thing he could do for our country.

    I can’t see how the partisan divide isn’t real. You might not be able to pick it up, put it in a box and ship it to Cameroon, but I fear it exists.

    Now what we do about it, is what will make us or break us.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment