The Politics of Cultural Despair

It is despair that is killing us. It fosters what Roger Lancaster calls “poisoned solidarity,” the intoxication forged from the negative energies of fear, envy, hatred and a lust for violence.

The Mourning After – by Mr. Fish

In the end, the election was about despair. Despair over futures that evaporated with deindustrialization. Despair over the loss of 30 million jobs in mass layoffs. Despair over austerity programs and the funneling of wealth upwards into the hands of rapacious oligarchs. Despair over a liberal class that refuses to acknowledge the suffering it orchestrated under neoliberalism or embrace New Deal type programs that will ameliorate this suffering. Despair over the futile, endless wars, as well as the genocide in Gaza, where generals and politicians are never held accountable. Despair over a democratic system that has been seized by corporate and oligarchic power.

This despair has been played out on the bodies of the disenfranchised through opioid and alcoholism addictions, gambling, mass shootings, suicides — especially among middle-aged white males — morbid obesity and the investment of our emotional and intellectual life in tawdry spectacles and the allure of magical thinking, from the absurd promises of the Christian right to the Oprah-like belief that reality is never an impediment to our desires. These are the pathologies of a deeply diseased culture, what Friedrich Nietzsche calls an aggressive despiritualized nihilism.

Donald Trump is a symptom of our diseased society. He is not its cause. He is what is vomited up out of decay. He expresses a childish yearning to be an omnipotent god. This yearning resonates with Americans who feel they have been treated like human refuse. But the impossibility of being a god, as Ernest Becker writes, leads to its dark alternative — destroying like a god. This self-immolation is what comes next.

Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party, along with the establishment wing of the Republican Party, which allied itself with Harris, live in their own non-reality-based belief system. Harris, who was anointed by party elites and never received a single primary vote, proudly trumpeted her endorsement by Dick Cheney, a politician who left office with a 13 percent approval rating. The smug, self-righteous “moral” crusade against Trump stokes the national reality television show that has replaced journalism and politics. It reduces a social, economic and political crisis to the personality of Trump. It refuses to confront and name the corporate forces responsible for our failed democracy. It allows Democratic politicians to blithely ignore their base –  77 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of independents support an arms embargo against Israel. The open collusion with corporate oppression and refusal to heed the desires and needs of the electorate neuters the press and Trump  critics. These corporate puppets stand for nothing, other than their own advancement. The lies they tell to working men and women, especially with programs such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), do far more damage than any of the lies uttered by Trump.

Oswald Spengler in “The Decline of the West” predicted that, as Western democracies calcified and died, a class of “monied thugs,” people such as Trump, would replace the traditional political elites. Democracy would become a sham. Hatred would be fostered and fed to the masses to encourage them to tear themselves apart.

The American dream has become an American nightmare.

The social bonds, including jobs that gave working Americans a sense of purpose and stability, that gave them meaning and hope, have been sundered. The stagnation of tens of millions of lives, the realization that it will not be better for their children, the predatory nature of our institutions, including education, health care and prisons, have engendered, along with despair, feelings of powerlessness and humiliation. It has bred loneliness, frustration, anger and a sense of worthlessness.

“When life is not worth living, everything becomes a pretext for ridding ourselves of it … ,” Émile Durkheim writes. “There is a collective mood, as there is an individual mood, that inclines nations to sadness. … For individuals are too closely involved in the life of society for it to be sick without their being affected. Its suffering inevitably becomes theirs.”

Decayed societies, where a population is stripped of political, social and economic power, instinctively reach out for cult leaders. I watched this during the breakup of the former Yugoslavia. The cult leader promises a return to a mythical golden age and vows, as Trump does, to crush the forces embodied in demonized groups and individuals that are blamed for their misery. The more outrageous cult leaders become, the more cult leaders flout law and social conventions, the more they gain in popularity. Cult leaders are immune to the norms of established society. This is their appeal. Cult leaders seek total power. Those who follow them grant them this power in the desperate hope that the cult leaders will save them.

All cults are personality cults. Cult leaders are narcissists. They demand obsequious fawning and total obedience. They prize loyalty above competence. They wield absolute control. They do not tolerate criticism. They are deeply insecure, a trait they attempt to cover up with bombastic grandiosity. They are amoral and emotionally and physically abusive. They see those around them as objects to be manipulated for their own empowerment, enjoyment and often sadistic entertainment. All those outside the cult are branded as forces of evil, prompting an epic battle whose natural expression is violence.

We will not convince those who have surrendered their agency to a cult leader and embraced magical thinking through rational argument. We will not coerce them into submission. We will not find salvation for them or ourselves by supporting the Democratic Party. Whole segments of American society are now bent on self-immolation. They despise this world and what it has done to them. Their personal and political behavior is willfully suicidal. They seek to destroy, even if destruction leads to violence and death. They are no longer sustained by the comforting illusion of human progress, losing the only antidote to nihilism.

Pope John Paul II in 1981 issued an encyclical titled “Laborem exercens,” or “Through Work.” He attacked the idea, fundamental to capitalism, that work was merely an exchange of money for labor. Work, he wrote, should not be reduced to the commodification of human beings through wages. Workers were not impersonal instruments to be manipulated like inanimate objects to increase profit. Work was essential to human dignity and self-fulfillment. It gave us a sense of empowerment and identity. It allowed us to build a relationship with society in which we could feel we contributed to social harmony and social cohesion, a relationship in which we had purpose.

The pope castigated unemployment, underemployment, inadequate wages, automation and a lack of job security as violations of human dignity. These conditions, he wrote, were forces that negated self-esteem, personal satisfaction, responsibility and creativity. The exaltation of the machine, he warned, reduced human beings to the status of slaves. He called for full employment, a minimum wage large enough to support a family, the right of a parent to stay home with children, and jobs and a living wage for the disabled. He advocated, in order to sustain strong families, universal health insurance, pensions, accident insurance and work schedules that permitted free time and vacations. He wrote that all workers should have the right to form unions with the ability to strike.

We must invest our energy into organizing mass movements to overthrow the corporate state through sustained acts of mass civil disobedience. This includes the most powerful weapon we possess – the strike. By turning our ire on the corporate state, we name the true sources of power and abuse. We expose the absurdity of blaming our demise on demonized groups such as undocumented workers, Muslims or Blacks. We give people an alternative to a corporate-indentured Democratic Party that cannot be rehabilitated. We make possible the restoration of an open society, one that serves the common good rather than corporate profit. We must demand nothing less than full employment, guaranteed minimum incomes, universal health insurance, free education at all levels, robust protection of the natural world and an end to militarism and imperialism. We must create the possibility for a life of dignity, purpose and self-esteem. If we do not, it will ensure a Christianized fascism and ultimately, with the accelerating ecocide, our obliteration.

The Real Reason Why Trump Supporters Worship Trump!

maxresdefault

You have read all the books.  You have heard all the theories.  Why do people support Trump?  But every time you listen to Trump, you shake your head wondering “why, why, why?”  Why would anyone support such a low life despicable character or should I say lack of character.  The experts, his “old” friends, his relatives and the left-wing keep coming up with more theories to explain the Trump phenomenon.  How could anyone support a man with no ethics?  An adulterer, liar and slanderer who is also greedy, avaricious and felonious.  A man who has already served one term in the highest office in the world with disastrous results and if his luck holds out may just serve another term.  How, how, how you ask is this possible?  How could 74 million people vote for such a person?

The books and pundits have proposed so many theories for the above questions during the last four years that it would make your head spin.  Going to Google, I found 111 books about Trump.  Most of these books are not favorable but a few are.  (See bibliography of Donald Trump).

There are other theories that have not been enshrined in a book yet.  A recent one that I heard had to do with virility.  Some scientists looked at the US States with the highest Viagra usage and found that the degree of Viagra sold correlated positively with the votes for Trump in that State.  The higher the usage of Viagra, the more men voted for Trump.  Ergo, the theory is that men who can’t get an erection are more likely to vote for Trump.  Needless to say, these “scientists” need to have their heads examined IMHO.  So why do people support Trump?  The other question is “why can’t any facts, data, evidence or Trump pronouncements change their minds?”  Lets start with the first question.

Why Do People Support Trump?

The answer lies in a John Denver song called, “Country Roads, Take Me Home

Almost Heaven, West Virginia

Blue Ridge Mountains, Shenandoah River

Life is old there, older than the trees

Younger than the mountains, growin’ like a breeze

Country roads, take me home

To the place I belong

West Virginia, mountain mama

Take me home, country roads

All my memories gather ’round her

Miner’s lady, stranger to blue water

Dark and dusty, painted on the sky

Misty taste of moonshine, teardrop in my eye

maxresdefault (1)

Trump supporters want to go back to the “good old days.”  The days when Whites governed.  Blacks and other minorities knew their places.  Women worked in the kitchen and bedroom and had children.  Men were the breadwinners and on a miners, truck drivers, postal workers, or other blue-collar job could raise a family of six and still have a few bucks left over to go down to the local pub after work for a couple of brews with buddies.

You did not have to be politically correct around gays who were called fags, or disabled people who were called gimps.  Mexicans came over to do the farm work and went back to Mexico.  Other minorities were given visas and possibilities of becoming US citizens but in much smaller quantities than for White Europeans.  School is where you went to get a diploma, play sports and maybe go to college.  No one was worried about being shot in a mass shooting.  Guns were plentiful but were mainly used for hunting and target practice.  Shooting someone for taking your parking space, was unheard of.  (Man killed during fight over parking spot)

It was a time when the USA ruled the roost.  China, Russia, Korea and the Mideast did not dare or would not dare to challenge us.  We had a cold war but until Vietnam, we had peace and prosperity.  Religion was a place that taught morals and values.  The separation of church and state was still believed in by most people.  The TV show “Happy Days” captures some of the nostalgia for the “Good Old Days.”  Days that might have been very happy for some Americans but definitely not for others.  It was also a time of Jim Crow laws that relegated many African Americans to the “back of the bus” and to less than second rate jobs and education.

images

Unfortunately, the Democrats do not understand the Right-Wing nostalgia for the past.  Harris intones “We will not go back.”  She may win over minorities and progressive White people with this message but not with Trump supporters.  It is the opposite of what Trump is promising.  it conflicts with Trump’s message.  Some have interpreted Trump’s message to “Make America Great Again” as a code for “Make America White Again.”  I believe a more accurate interpretation for his followers would be to “Take America Back Again.”  Back to Happy Days, back to a John Denver valley of peaceful tranquility.  Harris wants to go forward but Trump supporters are cautious, going forward to what?  Artificial Intelligence?  Mars Expeditions?  More fake internet information?  More wars in unknown parts of the world like Gaza and the Ukraine?  I want to go home.  I want to go home.

I hear her voice in the mornin’ hour, she calls me

The radio reminds me of my home far away

Drivin’ down the road, I get a feelin’

That I should’ve been home yesterday, yesterday

Country roads, take me home

To the place I belong

West Virginia, mountain mama

Take me home, country roads

 In my next blog, I will answer the second question that I posed above: “Why can’t any facts, data, evidence or Trump pronouncements change a Trump supporters mind?” 

 

My Final Will and Testament – Influences – Reflection #9  — Part 3 Music    

Since this blog is about music, there is no better way to read it than by listening to an Andre Rieu concert.  The first number is “Conquest of Paradise” by Vangelis.  The second number is the “Soldiers Chorus” from Gounod’s Faust.  Click on the link above.  I think the background will enhance your reading pleasure.

Imagine that this is the last day of your life on earth.  In the time that you have left, you want to leave a “Testament” for your family and friends. 

  1. These are the Influences (people, literature, and Music) that have shaped me.

Music

“Music soothes the savage beast” — William Congreve    

“Music is a moral law.  It gives soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination, and charm and gaiety to life and to everything.”  — Plato

“Next to the Word of God, music deserves the highest praise.  The gift of language combined with the gift of song was given to man that he should proclaim the Word of God through Music.” — Martin Luther

“Music was my refuge.  I could crawl into the space between the notes and curl my back to loneliness.” — Maya Angelou

I love music.  I love all music and all genres of music.  Yes, there are songs, composers, and performers that I do not like within every genre.  However, I have never found a genre of music from any culture in history or anywhere in the world that did not have something to feed my desires.  Music is food for the soul and a variety of music provides an abundance of nutrition.  The more variety I find in music, the more variety I can bring to my musical dining experience.

I love listening to Opera, Classical Music, Blues, Pop, Rock, Gospel, Country, Fado, Enka, Irish, African, Indian, Chinese and Rap.  Depending on what I am hungry for I might listen to Calypso or Reggae, or I might listen to Celtic and Madrigals.  I might be in the mood for country and cowboy songs, or I might feel like listening to “Golden Oldies.”  My musical tastes are as varied as my food tastes.

I grew up with an Italian father who loved Opera.  My mother was a southerner who gave me a love of Hank Williams, Patsy Cline, Homer and Jethro and Elvis Presley.  My fathers tastes were more for Caruso, Callas, Pavarotti, and Domingo.  My favorite Operas are Carmen, Madam Butterfly, The Pearl Fishers, Il Trovatore, Rigoletto, and Manon Lescaut.

I love Broadway musicals like Cats, 1776, Phantom of the Opera, Man of La Mancha, Fiddler on the Roof, Camelot, Chorus Line, and Les Misérables.  I love movie musicals like Paint Your Wagon, Grease, Tommy, Hair, Oklahoma, and the Wizard of Oz.  Of course, sometimes a musical goes from Broadway to Hollywood but there are often differences which make both genres interesting and tasty.

Some of my favorite composers include Tchaikovsky, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Lerner and Lowe , Rogers and Hammerstein, Beethoven, Verdi, Puccini, Mozart, and Bizet.  Some of my favorite singers include Harry Belafonte, Dolly Parton, Shakira, Nina Simone, Marvin Gaye, Bob Dylan, Pete Seegar, Paul Robeson, Little Richard, Arlo Guthrie, the Beetles, Elvis Presley, and Ronnie Milsap.  I have listened to and love most of the great operatic tenors and sopranos from Caruso to Fatma Said.  The list of these great singers would take up two pages at least.

I want to conclude these reflections on the Music that has made a difference in my life with a simple explanation of why so much of the music from the above sources has made a difference and what differences they have made.

When I was young, I did not listen to much music.  My parents were never very musical and if it was not on the radio, we never had any music around the house.  Sometime, around my middle school years (5th and 6th grades, I discovered rock and roll.  This would have been during the birth or at least White birth of Rock and Roll (1954 was when the genre got its name).  Black people had been listening to similar music long before Elvis Presley came on the Ed Sullivan show in 1956.  Later, when I went to high school, I took a course in Classical music which I found boring.  I hated the class.  I mostly enjoyed listening to Rock and Roll.  Country was not really an option on the East Coast in the fifties.  I cannot say to have had any deep or serious appreciation of music.

I think the big change in my musical tastes occurred after my first wife and I split.  I realized that I had been so focused on work that I had little time for anything else.  I wanted to start trying new things out and doing some things that I had never done before.  Being alone, I rediscovered my joy for libraries and just sitting around reading a good book.  The library in Eau Claire had the typical reading rooms as well as a few music rooms.  You could select some albums from the library collection and listen to them in the room with a headset.  I decided to explore several of the genres that I had avoided when younger.  I selected a large amount of classical music, folk music, and world music to explore.

You know how when you first taste something, you may not like it.  However, the more you eat it the more it grows on you.  That was how music went with me.  The more I tasted of Beethoven, Bach, Brahms, and other types of music from different parts of the globe, the more I began to love music.  My music menu soon extended to well beyond Rock and Roll to many of the genres that I have already mentioned.  My diet for music became insatiable.  Karen and I try to go to at least one musical performance a month.

This Saturday Karen and I are going to the 2024 Race Amity Day: Unity Through Music program at the Baha’i Faith Community Center in Scottsdale.  We are not members of the Baha’i faith and are going with some friends who invited us.  Karen plays piano and several other instruments very well.  She often does some solo performances as well as group performances.  Over the years I have declined Karen’s encouragement to become a player.  I prefer to be a listener.  Too much dedication and focus required to become a good player is not in my age-appropriate activity group.  I am happy to go to interesting performances and enjoy someone else who plays or sings or composes better than I ever could.

So, what do I get from the great deal of variety in my musical diet?  What are the nutritional benefits from this smorgasbord of music?  This is difficult to describe.  It seems that music mellows and tempers my moods.  Sometimes music is like a stimulant and it lifts my spirit and energizes me.  Spanish bullfight music does that for me.  Sometimes music is like a sedative, and it helps to calm and relax my mood.  “Love Me Tender” by Elvis has a very mellowing impact on my moods.  Sometimes music motivates me to do more and try harder.  The “Toreador Song” from Carmen has that effect on me.  Sometimes music reminds me that the world is much larger than the one I live in.  Pete Seegar’s “Where Have All the Flowers Gone” reminds me of this fact.

Perhaps the most impactful use of music in terms of influence is the music that teaches.  For example, Paul Robeson sang a song called the “Peat Bog Soldiers.”  It was written, composed, and first performed in a Nazi concentration camp (by political prisoners) in 1933.  By referencing the title, I found out that it was a famous protest song against Nazi Germany sung by the men and women in these concentration camps.  It is a well-known protest song in Europe.  The song from Madame Butterfly “Un bel dì, vedremo” always brings tears to my eyes.  This song taught me what happens when commitment and honesty are ignored.

Well that concludes as much as I can say about my musical influences.  I hope you have enjoyed your sojourn through my musical buffet.  May your musical diet be bountiful and nutritious and may you live your life with the sounds of music that you enjoy.

PS:  Some of the songs I liked are hyperlinked to YouTube music so you can listen to them. 

Next Reflection:

10.  These are the Scripture texts that have touched and helped me.

Shocking Headlines That are Almost Not Printable !!!!!

download

Pro-Christian Group Swarms Bible Bookstore to Destroy New King James Bibles: 

When asked why, the group’s leader answered, “Because we don’t believe in all this ‘new’ business.  We only want old bibles to be sold.  We never met King James anyway.”

Man Kills and Eats Pet Parrot:

“I killed him because he called me a ‘stupid’ Trump supporter.  Trump is not stupid.  I am going to buy another parrot that will vote for Trump.”

Students Run Wild on Campus as Protests Soar Across the USA

Students at McKinsey University were seen running to catch a bus after their graduation ceremony.  “What’s the fuss” one student said.  “Can’t we even run on campus anymore?  I swear I am not Anti-Semitic.”

Possible Alien Spacecraft Spotted Landing Near Homes in Scottsdale, AZ:

Closer investigation showed the spacecraft to be a remote-controlled toy spaceship from Mattel being operated by a five-year-old girl.  The young girl was arrested and taken away in hand cuffs despite proclaiming her innocence of any intended space invasion.

Woman Observed Performing Potentially Obscene Sex Acts in a Downtown Phoenix Park.

Witnesses say that she was doing something strange to a Barbie doll.  When approached, the woman threw the Barbie doll in a garbage pail and fled.  Officers are on the lookout for an eighty-year-old woman with a Barbie doll purse.

Biden Loses First Debate to Trump:

Four out of five Trump supporters say Trump will trash Biden in a debate.  When asked why, many replied “Because Sleepy Joe will fall asleep in the first five minutes after listening to Trump say how great he is.”  “We really do think he is great.”

Americans Leaving for Greener Pastures as Inflation Rises Again:

Many Americans are buying a new shade of weather resistant green grass for their lawns.  Rumors have it that it can be used in salads instead of lettuce.   Chefs say it makes a great Caesar salad.

Kim Kardashian Does It Again!

Kim Kardashian and several other famous celebrities were seen eating at the well-known Per Se restaurant in Manhattan.  Kim was wearing one of her naked see-through look dresses.   She reportedly was miffed that most patrons focused on checking out the menu.

Dr. John Persico Wins the Nobel Prize for Literature:

John dreamed that he won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2025 until his wife woke him up in the middle of his acceptance speech.  “Let me sleep,” he said, “It’s not every day that I win the Nobel Prize.”

The National Enquirer was Awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Journalism and Truth Telling this Week:

The headlines of the National Enquirer contained news of its pending Pulitzer Prize.  The story was written by five of its leading writers who were subsequently fired for telling lies.  They were then rehired and given raises.

images (1)

Shocking headlines have become the norm or new normal.  The media specialize in well-rehearsed talking points that come from on-high in corporate headquarters.  “Protestors are funded by Hamas” is echoed repeatedly by high paid shills for the media who call themselves journalists.  “Antisemitism is rampant among college university professors” shriek other headline news liars.  “If we don’t stop Russia in the Ukraine they will soon be over here to invade Disney Land” is a frequent threat published by all the major news outlets.  “We need more money for defense” is a never-ending plea that benefits the military and the manufacturers of bombs and bullets.

As we attempt to ignore these absurd, threatening, and shocking headlines, the efforts of marketers to come up with new bait to hook us continues nonstop.  Each day brings more and more bizarre and misleading headlines.  We may want to opt out of the media blitz that bombards us via the TV, the radio, the internet, cellphones, emails, social media, and text messages, but it is an almost impossible task.

Someone said, “You can run but you can’t hide.”  You can run from the news, but you can’t hide from it.  From the shores of Montezuma to the hallowed hallways of the Supreme Court, the news will get you.  They want you to be depressed, unhappy, miserable, and hopeless.  But don’t worry too long.  They have the fix for your unhappiness.  The answer is in the next commercial.  Buy it now, pay later and find true joy.  Happiness is buying.  Happiness is owning.  Happiness is selling the junk that no longer makes you happy and buying new junk which will succeed where the last junk failed.

Be sure to buy a big gun.  You will need it for protection to make sure that the Democrats, communists, liberals, gays, immigrants, feminists, student protestors, Arabs, Russians, and others don’t sneak in at night and take your junk away.  Actually, just to be on the safe side, buy two big guns.

WHY?  Oh WHY? Oh WHY?

why-1780726_640

“WHY did this happen?” is a question that seeks reasons and meaning for an event.  Some answers to this question include:

“It happened because God/Allah/etc. willed it”

“It happened because that’s the way the stars aligned”

“There is no reason, it just happened”

WHY did Oswald kill Kennedy?  WHY did the shooter in Las Vegas kill 60 people?  WHY do people support someone like Trump?  WHY do we allow Israel to have nuclear weapons but not other nations in the Mideast?  WHY did a nice person like that ever marry a real jerk?  WHY did the chicken cross the road?  From the sublime, to the peculiar to the mundane to the trivial, we are obsessed with knowing WHY?  We must have a reason WHY.

The police call it motive.  If a crime happens today, someone will scourer Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TicTok, and other social media to find out “WHY?”  WHY did they do it?  What was their motive?  WHY would a 47 year old married woman with three children who was a teacher have sex with a seventeen year old in the back seat of her husbands car?

When we don’t know WHY, we either begin a useless search for the reason or we brush it aside.  Your young child asks you WHY and you reply, “Because I told you to.”  Your employee asks you WHY and you respond, “Because I am the boss.”  You want to know WHY they laid you off or WHY you were fired, and you get a reply like “We had a reduction in force.”  You want to know “WHY” you were defriended on Facebook or WHY you did not get the job you applied for or WHY your good friend died so young or a million other WHYs.   No one stops to think, there is no sense in asking WHY?  In all probability, any WHYs you come up with will be suppositions, hypotheses, conjectures or out and out myths.

We are diseased with asking WHY.  We do not want to accept an arbitrary and capricious universe.  Even the great Einstein rejected Quantum Theory because it was built on the concept of indeterminacy.  Ironic, that so many people initially rejected Einstein’s theory of Relativity because it lacked absoluteness and determinacy.  Today, we still have a rebellion going on in morality in terms of whether or not there is any absolute morality or is all morality relative.  It is easy to posit a WHY if you have a solid concept of morality that you can refer to.  The favorite one among religious people is the concept of sinner.  A sinner is anyone who ruptures the boundaries of your own avowed religion.

So I run to the Lord

Please hide me, Lord

Don’t you see me prayin’?

Don’t you see me down here prayin’?

But the Lord said

Go to the Devil, the Lord said

Go to the Devil

He said go to the Devil  — Sinner Man by Nina Simone

I told a friend of mine the other day that I did not want to go to heaven.  “WHY,” he asked?  “Because.” I replied, “What if Adolph Hitler and Donald Trump are both there?”  I think the WHYs around such a situation would drive me to hell.

Another friend of mine is always good for theories on WHY people do things.  We discuss lots of problems in the world and he loves to seek out facts and evidence that might help to explain WHY.  He is driven to make sense of a nonsensical random capricious world that is frustrating.  Perhaps most frustrating is that just when we are beginning to realize that there are no answers to the WHYs of the world, suddenly an answer emerges or at least appears to.

The answer all depends on numbers.  A WHY can be found if enough people are willing to accept the explanation.  WHYs have a democratic aspect that has nothing to do with logic.  For instance, the question I raised above about WHY anyone would support Donald Trump has spawned a cottage industry of books purporting to provide WHYs to the Trump sycophancy.  From racism, to sexism, to caste, to identities, to religion, to abortion, to greed, to fear, to being rural, to the electoral college, there have been over fifty books dedicated to theories to describe WHY any rational human being would vote for Trump.

71K5t+FhguL._AC_UL640_QL65_

I asked ChatGPT “WHY would anyone vote for Donald Trump.”  Here is what she/he said:

ChatGPT:

“People vote for political candidates for a variety of reasons, and the decision to vote for Donald Trump in particular can be influenced by a range of factors.  Some voters are drawn to his positions on certain issues, such as immigration, trade, or foreign policy.  Others appreciate his outsider status and his perceived willingness to challenge the political establishment.  Additionally, some voters may feel a strong connection to his personality, viewing him as a strong leader who speaks his mind.”

“It’s also important to consider the broader political and cultural context in which elections take place.  Factors like party loyalty, economic conditions, perceptions of the opposing candidate, and regional or demographic influences can all play a role in why someone might choose to vote for a candidate like Donald Trump.”

I think this is a very good answer, but somehow it lacks a definitive characteristic.  I don’t want a hodgepodge of reasons WHY.  I want to know “THE WHY.”  All of the mitigating factors above are mere hypotheses.  If your neighbor has a Trump Flag flying outside his/her house or your cousin says that “I am going to vote for Trump no matter what he does”, the above reasons given by ChatGPT are not going to do much for you.  The problem with finding an answer to WHY is that it is like the Russian dolls.  One WHY is embedded in another WHY.  We want the bottom WHY but then the dolls become more like an onion.  You can peel the onion all day long and eventually there is nothing there.  If you are looking for a core seed or a core reason to explain all the other WHYs, you will soon be grasping nothing but air.  For instance:

“WHY did you vote for Donald Trump?”

“Because he is a Republican.”

“So, you voted for Trump because he is a Republican and you support the Republican party?”

“YES.”

“WHY do you support the Republican party?”

“I have always supported it.”

“WHY”?

“Well, my mother and father were both Republicans.”

“WHY”?

“I don’t know, they always were so I am too.”

“What if Trump decided to become a Democrat again, would you still vote for him?”

“Yes, I would.”

“So, it really has nothing to do with his party affiliation?”

“I guess not.” 

“Thank you for your cogent explanation.” 

Where oh where can I find the real reason WHY the world is so screwed up?  And what if it is not?  What does that mean for the universe?

29116_SB_text

“Excerpt from ‘Suzie Bitner Was Afraid of the Drain’ by Barbara Vance.”

PS:

WHY are poems so confusing?

In Defense of Not Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils.

downloadThis years election is going to force people to decide between the lesser of two evils.  Trump is undoubtedly the winner in being the most evil person to ever run for president in the USA.  His former Chief of Staff said that Trump was the most vile man he had ever met.  Kelly declared:

“A person that thinks those who defend their country in uniform, or are shot down or seriously wounded in combat, or spend years being tortured as POWs are all ‘suckers’ because ‘there is nothing in it for them.’  A person that did not want to be seen in the presence of military amputees because ‘it doesn’t look good for me.’  A person who demonstrated open contempt for a Gold Star family—for all Gold Star families—on TV during the 2016 campaign, and rants that our most precious heroes who gave their lives in America’s defense are ‘losers’ and wouldn’t visit their graves in France.”  — The New Republic, Oct 2023

Running against a man who would further erode what democracy we have left in this country is a coward who is afraid to take on Netanyahu and his US lobbies.  Bernie Sanders had the courage to say that he would not give Israel one nickel for defense until a permanent cease fire was declared

“I will be damned if I’m going to give another nickel to the Netanyahu government in order to continue this war against the Palestinian people.”  — February 13, 2024, by John Nichols; The Nation

Just yesterday, Biden said that “There would be no red line for Israel.”  He takes this cowardly position even in the face of a horrible death toll and as Israel prepares another major offensive designed to kill as many Palestinians as they can in Southern Gaza.  Then Netanyahu spits in Bidens face and says that “Victory is close.”  The Israel Defense Force won’t be “getting off the gas” and eliminating Hamas in Rafah is a “prerequisite for victory.”  — NY Post, March 11, 2024

Let me add that not only do I hold Biden complicit in the genocide going on in Gaza but also for the number of soldiers killed in the Ukrainian War with Russia.  This war could have been prevented by pursuing more diplomacy with Russia.  Instead, we have a sitting President who is still dumb enough to be spouting the Domino Theory of Communism.  He tells us that if Russia defeats the Ukraine they will soon be after Europe and then America.  I had thought only fools still believed this theory, but Biden spouted it in his SOTU speech the other night.

One empirical study on the validity of the Domino Theory was done in 2009.  Using spatial econometrics and panel data that cover over 130 countries between 1850 and 2000, Peter T. Leeson and Andrea M. Dean empirically investigated the democratic domino theory.  They found the following:

“We find that democratic dominoes do in fact fall as the theory contends.  However, these dominoes fall significantly “lighter” than the importance of this model suggests. Countries “catch” only about 11% of the increases or decreases in their average geographic neighbors’ increases or decreases in democracy.  This finding has potentially important foreign policy implications.  The “lightness” with which democratic dominoes fall suggests that even if foreign military intervention aimed at promoting democracy in undemocratic countries succeeds in democratizing these nations, intervention is likely to have only a small effect on democracy in their broader regions.”  — “The Democratic Domino Theory: An Empirical Investigation” by Peter T. Leeson and Andrea M. Dean,  American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Jul., 2009), pp. 533-551

Keep in mind that this is only one study, however politicians routinely use this theory to justify intrusions and violations of other country sovereignty all over the world.  The real truth is not a fear of communism but a fear that our capitalistic hegemony over the world will be put at risk.  But I am divulging from the main issue.  Do I vote for Biden who exemplifies the policy of continuing never-ending wars or Trump who will attack minorities, attack immigrants, attack women, attack veterans, attack disabled, attack people of other gender identities and attack every institution of democracy left in America?

Clearly Biden is the lesser of two evils.  But I will not vote for Biden.  I certainly will not vote for Trump even if my soul depended upon it.  I will vote for one of the independents who I admire.  So, say it now “You are going to throw your vote away.  A vote for anyone else but Biden is a vote for Trump.  Independents have no chance of winning and will only take votes away from Biden.  Do you want Trump to win?”  Eight years ago, I made this same argument against supporting Sanders rather than Hillary.  My arguments for Hillary became so aggressive that I lost several friends before the election.  People who have never talked to me since the election.  And who won?  Trump!  Trump won and I lost.  I lost on three counts.

  1. I lost the chance that Sanders might have beaten Trump
  2. I lost friends
  3. I lost my integrity by voting for someone I did not really like.   

Ironically by not voting for Biden this year, I may lose more friends.  Almost everyone I admire seems to have decided to go with the “lesser of two evils” argument.  Is there merit to this argument?  Can we really predict the future based on it?  Is it any more valid then the Domino Theory?  Here is another opinion besides my own with some reasons why this argument should lose its validity.

The “lesser of two evils” argument has been a mainstay of Democratic election strategy since 2016. The formula is clear: 1) Throw overwhelming institutional support at an often unpopular and watered-down candidate.  2) Tell primary voters not to actually vote for their desired candidate because they are “unelectable.” 3) After forcing through a politician that many voters did not want, tell voters to be a good citizen and choose the “lesser of two evils” in the general election.  This strategy is unsustainable, ineffective, and sabotaging the core of our democracy.

In 2020, voters accepted this premise.  “Unprecedented” times called for “unprecedented” measures, so people swallowed their tongues and checked their ballots.  This is how the Democratic party garnered record-breaking voter turnout for an aggressively mediocre candidate.  According to Forbes, 56% of voters in 2020 admitted to voting for Biden because he was “not Trump.”  The Democratic PACs (political action committees) leaned into this message, spending heavily on “anti-Trump” ads.

But this coming election is different.  Not only are Biden and Harris particularly unpopular, but voters are also beginning to understand that you can’t call the times “unprecedented” forever.  At some point, we enter into a new normal.   And with the rising stars of the Republican party, like Ron Desantis — whose platform and policies prove just as Trump-y as Trump himself — it is becoming evident that the DNC, if allowed, will make this pitch indefinitely.

The 2016 election was a trial run of this method for the Democratic party — they were testing the waters to see how far they could push the party’s base without facing repercussions.  Minor changes did take place following the election, like stripping some power from superdelegates to appease the outraged progressive faction of the party.  Still, when faced with lawsuits from Democratic voters, claiming that the 2016 primary was unjust, DNC lawyers tried to cling to their ability to choose the Democratic candidate behind closed doors without input from voters.  They argued that “the words ‘impartial’ and ‘even handed’ — as used in the DNC Charter — can’t be interpreted by a court of law.”  This laid the groundwork for the growing unabashed bias toward specific candidates that emerged first in 2020 and is now resurfacing for 2024.

In this primary, the Democratic party has become more aggressive than ever in pre-selecting the candidate for voters. For example, they are infamously attempting to shift primary dates to benefit Biden’s campaign and give him a stronger start in the primaries.  And despite the few challengers that are running collectively taking around 30% of the vote, the Democratic party is adamantly refusing to host a debate.

While in past primary elections, the Democratic Party maintained some semblance of plausible deniability when supporting candidates, in this election it is clear that the DNC is unequivocally backing Biden.

Voters are villainized for being apathetic toward a candidate that they did not even choose.  In 2016, op-eds stating “you do have an obligation to vote for the lesser of two evils” were plastered across major news outlets.   In 2020, Biden controversially quipped, “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t Black” while being questioned on a popular radio show.  In 2024, we are seeing a similar strategy play out again.

DNC Chair Jaime Harrison recently scolded Democratic challengers and third-party candidates, saying, “This is not the time to [sic] experiment.  This is not the time to play around on the margins … we got to re-elect Joe Biden.  We have to re-elect Kamala Harris.”  — Rhea Karty: The Lesser of Two Evils Argument Needs To Die, The Dartmouth, August 2, 2023

A poll taken back in January of this year gave the following results:

“Seventy percent of respondents – including about half of Democrats – agreed with a statement that Biden should not seek re-election.  Fifty-six percent of people responding to the poll said Trump should not run, including about a third of Republicans.” — Trump vs. Biden: The rematch many Americans don’t want, by Jason Lange, January 25, 2024

I am going to join the ranks of those who are sick and tired of having to choose between “The lesser of Two Evils”.  A choice where I was not given any real say in the making of.  In the words of Patrick Henry,

“For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate.  It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country.  Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.” — St. John’s Church, Richmond, Virginia, March 23, 1775

So, there you have it my friends.  I am not going to allow the Democratic Party to keep running their game on me.  If Biden loses, we may forfeit any democracy we have left in this country.  However, if Biden wins, the Democratic Party will continue their support of unpopular wars and the propensity to elect people not popular with the majority of voters.  I have heard many people say that they do not want either man.  Yet here we are folks.  Both sides feeling like they are choosing between the lesser of two evils.

I have made my choice.  Choose now for yourself.

images (2)

Why You Should Believe Nothing You Read or Hear in the News!

news-icons (1)I want to make an argument as to why most of what you hear or read is biased, prejudiced and based on narrow minded thinking.  Most of what you read will not lead you to the truth but will take you down a path away from the truth.  My argument will also apply to what you are about to read.  I am biased, narrow minded and prejudiced.  So why should you read or listen to what I am about to write?  Well, let’s start at the beginning.

Like many of you reading this, I consider myself somewhat of a truth seeker.  Although, I believe few if any “absolute” truths actually exist.  Nevertheless, I read a wide variety of books and magazines.  I listen to many different sources including TV, Radio, Podcasts, TED Talks, documentaries, and YouTube videos.  I attend training sessions, conferences, and talks by noted experts whenever possible.  I also scan many different news sources each day to find a variety of perspectives concerning political events and popular news.  My friends consider me well informed and very knowledgeable on a wide range of subjects.

maxresdefaultI have been seeking the truth or what might pass as “truth” for most of my 75 years on this earth.  I was considered the “smartest” guy in the room in many of my high school and college classes.  The authorities or those that are supposed to be good judges of truth and knowledge gave me two undergraduate degrees, one master’s degree and a Ph.D. Degree.  Once upon a time, I belonged to many different professional associations and was also a member of MENSA, the so-called high IQ society.  None of my qualifications or associations prepared me any better than anyone else upon this earth to find the TRUTH.  Like most of you, I am still looking and hoping that the “Truth will set me free.”  If only, I can find it.

Fake news-01

A few days ago, I noticed seven different editorials on Google News concerning the Ukrainian War.  Each of the editorials was written by a professional journalist and each espoused some very critical ideas.  Some of these ideas would carry weight with readers and no doubt influence public opinion for good or bad.  Six of the journalists’ names were listed and one was not.  Now most stories we get in the news whether on TV or print are written by journalists.  Less frequently it will be some “policy” expert or high-ranking government official who will be doing an opinion piece or some type of interview.

I started to ask myself a few questions:

  • What are their professional qualifications?
  • How much influence or weight do these journalists carry?
  • How much slant or bias do these journalists carry?
  • Are journalists and the media really qualified to tell us what we should or should not be doing?

I looked up each of the journalists to see what their qualifications were.  Basically, they were professionally trained journalists and most of them had extensive experience in foreign relations.  Neither of these attributes makes them an expert on the Ukraine but it is conceivable that they might have more knowledge in some areas of foreign policy than the general public.  Again, more knowledge does not mean less biases. Here are the news sources and brief bios for the six journalists I researched:

The Washington Post- Liz Sly and Dan Lamothe

Liz Sly (born in the United Kingdom) is a British journalist based in Beirut.  She is currently a correspondent with The Washington Post covering Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and other countries of the Middle East.   She graduated from the University of Cambridge.

Dan Lamothe is an award-winning military journalist and war correspondent.  He has written for Marine Corps Times and the Military Times newspaper chain since 2008, traveling the world and writing extensively about the Afghanistan war both from Washington and the war zone.  He also has reported from Norway, Spain, Germany, the Republic of Georgia and while underway with the U.S. Navy.

NPR – Greg Myre

Greg Myre is an American journalist and an NPR national security correspondent with a focus on the intelligence community.  Before joining NPR, he was a foreign correspondent for the Associated Press and The New York Times for 20 years.  He reported from more than 50 countries and covered a dozen wars and conflicts.

The Wall Street Journal – David Henninger

Mr. Henninger was a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize in editorial writing in 1987 and 1996 and shared in the Journal’s Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the paper’s coverage of the attacks on September 11. In 2004, he won the Eric Breindel Journalism Award for his weekly column.  He has won the Gerald Loeb Award for commentary, the Scripps Howard Foundation’s Walker Stone Award for editorial writing and the American Society of Newspaper Editors’ Distinguished Writing Award for editorial writing.  He is a weekly panelist on the “Journal Editorial Report” on Fox News.

The Atlantic – Eliot Cohen

Eliot Asher Cohen (born April 3, 1956, in Boston, Massachusetts) is an American political scientist. He was a counselor in the United States Department of State under Condoleezza Rice from 2007 to 2009.  In 2019, Cohen was named the 9th Dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University, succeeding the former dean, Vali Nasr.  Before his time as dean, he directed the Strategic Studies Program at SAIS.

Cohen was one of the first neoconservatives to publicly advocate war against Iran and Iraq.  In a November 2001 op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Cohen identified what he called World War IV and advocated the overthrow of Iran’s government as a possible next step for the Bush Administration. Cohen claimed “regime change” in Iran could be accomplished with a focus on “pro-Western and anticlerical forces” in the Middle East and suggested that such an action would be “wise, moral and unpopular (among some of our allies)”

The New York Times – Cora Engelbrecht

Cora Engelbrecht is a contributor to the RIGHTS blog.  She recently received her BA in nonfiction writing from Wesleyan University, and now works in New York as a freelance writer, researcher, and graphic artist.  Her interest for human rights and global conflict stems from her time spent researching and writing abroad in Tanzania and South Africa.

rathom-trench-fb

I next turned to the question of how much influence do journalists carry?  The story of John Revelstoke Rathom (1868–1923) is very informative in this regard.  He was a journalist, editor, and author based in Rhode Island at the height of his career. In the years before World War I, he was a prominent advocate of American participation in the war against Germany.

c9713250-e5eb-46c7-8ea9-2810435084fa-9781643139364“Rathom campaigned for the U.S. to enter World War I in support of the British.  Under his management, the Providence Journal produced a series of exposés of German espionage and propaganda in the U.S.  In 2004, that same newspaper reported that much of Rathom’s coverage was a fraud: ‘In truth, the Providence Journal had acquired numerous inside scoops on German activities, mostly from British intelligence sources who used Rathom to plant anti-German stories in the American media.’” –  Wikipedia

It seems logical to assume that since we did enter the war and since the Brits did go out of their way to bias American policy that the efforts of Rathom and others had a major influence on our decision to enter the war on England’s side. America was persuaded by the media that we should enter the war when there was substantial public opinion to stay out of the mess that Europe was in.  My own reading of WW I shows a totally different scenario than from WW II.  I have little doubt that we should have entered the war against Hitler.  However, the picture from WW I is quite different.  I think that each side had equal claims to legitimacy for their war efforts.  But the media heavily influenced our eventual entry into the war.

Next I wanted to see if anyone had opinions about the bias or prejudices that the typical journalist might have.  I found the following comment in a recent article by Politico, “Why Journalists Love War”, by Jack Shafer  03/17/2022

“NBC News reporter Richard Engel, a veteran foreign war correspondent, dropped a tweet a few days after the war began that appeared to lament that U.S. forces hadn’t strafed the huge Russian convoy approaching Kyiv, seemingly unimpressed that such a strike might launch World War III.  Reporters didn’t call in bombers at White House press secretary Jen Psaki’s Monday briefing, but the tone of their repeated questions almost made it sound like they were advocating a no-fly zone and fresh jets for Ukraine.  And the New York Post left no ambiguity about where they stood with its super-partisan “Fight Like Zel” cover headline.”

“The overwhelming majority of U.S. journalists have taken a more subdued position on the war, identifying with Ukraine against the aggressor Russians, but stopping just short of cheerleading. Even so, journalists can’t hide the seductive draw of the bloodworks.  They can’t help themselves. They love war.”

Photojournalist,Documenting,War,And,Conflict

Of course, this is only one opinion.  However, it fit well with my observations.  I have noticed every day calls by journalists for increased efforts to support Ukraine that might well lead to a Nuclear War.  As I read these brash comments, I sit wondering where were the calls to intervene in Nigeria, Rhodesia, Yemen, and Cambodia?  Why are the news outlets pushing a narrative that implies world disaster if the Ukraine falls to Russia?

Listen please!  I would like to see the Ukrainians kick all the Russian asses back to Siberia or some other cold place.  However, I am not willing to start a Nuclear War over the Ukraine.  There have been too many missed opportunities by the West during the past five years that would have avoided the present war.  What is it that brings out the desire to have a nuclear confrontation with Russia?  Nothing I can see except a Democratic Party that needs to look tough and a cadre of journalists pushing a narrative for more and more support by our country for a nation that we do not even have a treaty with.

“The link between safety and ethics may not be immediately obvious, but the same ambitions and economic factors that pressure inexperienced and poorly prepared freelance journalists to enter battle zones also pressure journalists to present the news as they think that their paymasters most want to hear it.”  — https://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/ethics-safety-solidarity-journalism — Originally published as a chapter of “Conflict reporting in the smartphone era – from budget constraints to information warfare”

A book that I am reading is “The Science of Fear” (2008) by Daniel Gardner.  The following  insight by Gardner is quite pertinent to this discussion.

9780226567198“The media are among those that profit by marketing fear – nothing gives a boost to circulation and ratings like a good panic – but the media also promote unreasonable fears for subtler and more compelling reasons.  The most profound is the simple love of stories and storytelling.  For the media, the most essential ingredient of a good story is the same as that of a good movie, play or tale told by a campfire.  It has to be about people and emotions, not numbers and reason.  Thus, the particularly tragic death of a single child will be reported around the world while a massive and continuing decline in child mortality rates is hardly noticed.” — Pg. 294

Ever since the decline of print news and the rise of the internet, the media has become a cesspool of click bait headlines, gross news reports about inane subjects, media celebrities touted as royalty and increasingly bizarre stories designed to spread fear.  There is no more morality or ethics in the news than there is in a cartel, mafia, or mega-corporation.  It is all about the money and there never seems to be enough these days.  Is the media biased is actually a very stupid question.  Right, left, central it does not matter.  They all have one agenda and that is to sell advertising for their corporate sponsors

My final question was, “Are journalists and the media really qualified to tell us what we should or should not be doing?”  My answer is that they are no more qualified than anyone else on the street or even one of your friends or relatives.  A study done several years ago and published in a book called “Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?” (2005) by Philip E. Tetloc examined the link between experts’ opinions and how often they were right.

Im-an-expert-600x412

Tetloc in his heavily researched study found that experts are often no better at making predictions than most other people, and how when they are wrong, they are rarely held accountable.  Kahneman and Tversky in their book “Judgment Under Uncertainty” (1982) identify dozens of cognitive biases that impact the thinking ability of human beings.  They both later won a Nobel Prize for their work in behavioral economics.  It is often the most highly educated people who suffer from these biases the most.

Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” (1962) dealt with the biases that the scientific community held regarding theories and principles.  Kuhn showed how difficult it was for the scientific community to let go of “old paradigms” and adopt new paradigms.  This was true even when all the evidence showed that the new paradigms did a better job of explaining the subject under study than the old paradigm.  Science history is full of many theories that took fifty or more years to be accepted simply due to the biases and resistance to change that is prevalent among scientists.  This is as true of scientists as it is of journalists, politicians, and the average person.

What is the answer:

A friend of mine said that the most important thing we have to do is to teach our children to question everything.  To question is the heart and soul of critical thinking.  However, we must be cautious lest we raise a nation or world of nihilists.  There is a difference between rejecting everything and questioning everything.

I am not a nihilist though I see a fine line between my thinking and nihilism.  I do not believe in absolute truth, but I think there are approximate truths.  As we learn more and more about anything, our truths get closer to the absolute, but we can never reach it.  I think the same way about meaning in life.  Meaning exists but only in our minds.  It will change many times during our lives.  The same is true for morality and values.  They exist but only in our minds.  Like the Velveteen Rabbit, they become real when we make them so.

Purchasing-Power-of-the-US-Dollar

I used to hold up a dollar bill and ask my students how much was it worth?   They typically replied one dollar.  I asked them why it was worth a dollar?  Answers varied, but the truth or close to it is that it is because people believe that it is worth a dollar.  In terms of labor, ink, and paper, it costs the Federal government 6.2 cents to print a dollar.  In terms of buying value, a dollar in 1926 is worth only 15.58 cents today.  However, this is not an absolute either since the current value of a dollar actually varies from state to state.  The value of a dollar varies about 30 cents from the lowest to the highest state across the USA.  In Mississippi, a dollar is worth $1.16, while in Hawaii, the dollar is only worth 84.39 cents.

So, seeing is believing or is believing seeing?  Is there a difference between perception and reality or are they the same?  Can we ever escape the Rashomon effect?  The biases in perception created by our own desires to protect our egos or the egos of others.

1200-610551-47762564-39573934

There is little I have learned in my life that supports my willingness to accept anything as 100 percent factual, 100 percent truthful or 100 percent valid and reliable.  The solution is to question everything.  Do not accept anything as absolute.  When it comes to politicians, lawyers, salespeople, and journalists, we all need to be on guard.  Their built-in bias is not for the truth but for the dollar or at least 84 cents on the dollar.

quote-the-media-has-enormous-power-the-media-is-undergoing-huge-changes-now-it-seemed-like-thomas-hunt-morgan-67-60-81

 Update:  4/29/22

Just read the following on CNBC.  This “brilliant” analysis by a guy who writes regularly for a variety of news outlets and is listed as a “Tutor” notes the following:

“I think it’s outside the realm of possibility right now that there’s going to be a nuclear war or World War III that really spills over that far beyond Ukraine’s borders,” Samuel Ramani, a geopolitical analyst and associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, told CNBC.

Dr. Samuel Ramani’s credentials for this brilliant piece of optimistic analysis is that he is a tutor of politics and international relations at the University of Oxford, where he received his doctorate in March 2021. Somehow this makes him an expert in what Russia will do next in the Ukraine.  His “beyond optimism” comes at a time when Putin is starting to get more and more desperate in his bid to defeat the Ukraine.  Putin is becoming a cornered rat and NATO is pushing him into more and more of a corner.  Despite this, the genius who is less than two years since he finished his Ph.D. degree says “it is “OUTSIDE” the realm of possibility that Putin will launch a nuclear strike.  It would only be “OUTSIDE” if Nuclear weapons did not exist.  Questions I have are:

  • Why is CNBC relying on the credentials of someone with so little expertise to give us such an analysis?
  • How could anyone in their right mind say that something is impossible when that something already exists?
  • What is the “narrative” behind the focus by the Western news?
  • Why is NATO supporting a war when we have no treaty with the Ukraine.

 

Next Newer Entries