One of the many tragedies of Trumpism/MAGA is that so many of the icons of our society have been hijacked by hateful morons. Yes, certainly a flag pin on the lapel is one of them, but what about the American flag itself? Even the word “patriot” now means “Trump supporter.”
I know I’m joined by the majority when I say that I’m anxious to have all this stupidity behind us.
I don’t have a great deal to add here.
The danger that Trump represents to the safety and security of the United States is impossible to overstate.
What RFK said here is true, but I think it might be useful to ask why certain people want to prevent our society from moving forward.
I would suggest that this is the notion of fear. If you look at Trumpism as a whole, you have the fear that people of different skin colors, religions, sexual orientations, and countries of origins may be gaining at your expense.
Now, fear is not in and of itself, a bad thing. Without it, our ancient ancestors wouldn’t have survived the legitimately dangerous situations that presented themselves. They would have, for instance, been eaten by wild animals, thus removing their DNA from the gene pool.
Yet an unnecessarily high level of fear translates into the tribalism and racism we see all around us, and it opens us up to having our lowest, most reptilian emotions stirred up by would-be dictators like Trump. We need to recognize this for what it is.
This is why I tend to cut Trump supporters some level of slack; they are simply wired in such a way as to be particularly susceptible to messages that stimulate hate and fear.
We’ve all come across the content of the meme here many times. Why don’t we tax mega-churches where their pastors live in palaces and their parishioners live in trailer parks?
The answer is not that we want to subsidize churches, but, paradoxically, it’s the opposite; we want them as distantly separated from matters of state as possible. There is a concept that came out of a Supreme Court case called “excessive entanglement (between church and state),” by forcing religious organizations to prepare, file, and legally defend their tax returns would result in enmeshing them with our secular government.
There was a time not too long ago where this conversation would have been unnecessary, because it would have been inconceivable that a former U.S. president would encourage a nuclear-armed dictatorship to invade one (or more) of our allies.
Indeed, the world needs a wake-up call.
We all need to recognize that due to our continued use of fossil fuels as our principal energy source, coupled with the destruction of our rain forests to make room for the expansion of the beef industry, we are committing ourselves to the destruction of the only planet we call home.
The woman in the cartoon here is actually author National Book Foundation Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters.
She makes an interesting point.
At this point in history, most enlightened minds would like to see the United States move in the direction of the form of government found in most of the other developed countries, e.g., the “social democracies” Europe and Scandinavia.
This is a long way from Marxism, but it’s not completely deregulated capitalism either. If you live in Denmark and want to get filthy rich, you’ll run into the same marginal tax rates that we had here in the U.S. from the 1930s through the 1970s: around 90%. It doesn’t mean that you can’t be an Elon Musk or a Jeff Bezos, but it does mean that you won’t be able to get there without paying your fair share of taxes.
It’s no coincidence that these folks are mentally and, in many cases, physically the healthiest people on Earth; they have achieved that position largely by virtue of their political philosophy, which may be summarized as follows: We live in a human society. If it costs me a few extra Euros to eradicate homelessness, the death of relatively poor people with treatable diseases, and the ignorance of those without means to afford an education, that’s 100% OK with me.
At left is something 19th Century Scottish author George McDonald had to say on the subject of truth and why brave and honest people feel compelled to call their most cherished beliefs into doubt.
It speaks quite broadly, but most certainly includes the scientific method. Part of the beauty of science is that it is constantly trying to undermine itself. Sure, we believe X about climate science, Y about viral pandemics, and Z about the fundamental building blocks of the universe, but we’re also persistently trying to prove these beliefs incorrect, or at best incomplete, so they can be replaced by better understanding.
In preparation for my first book, Renewable Energy–Facts and Fantasies, I recall asking V. Ramanathan of the Scripps Institute, one of the world’s most visible climate scientists, if he was aware that some people claim that he and his peers are steadfast in their positions merely because it enables them to take in more government grant money.
He laughed. “Yes, believe it or not, I have heard that. What these people don’t seem to know is that, regardless of what they may think about my character, is that I could actually become rich if I could prove that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is fundamentally flawed.”
We have to conclude that scientists in all disciplines have to content themselves with a cruel fact: that what they may believe today is under constant attack by those who want to alert us to a better understanding of the world around us, and that this indeed is a positive feature.
Here’s an article on a venture backed by Bill Gates to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
I’ve always been skeptical of these types of enterprises, on the basis of sheer mathematics. In this case, the technology involves collecting and baking biomass into rectangular solids the size of shoeboxes, covering them with an impenetrable coating to prevent decay, burying them in deep holes, and monitoring them indefinitely.
In 2025, the company predicts it will capture 15,000 metric tons of CO2, which is 1 out of 2.5 million of the world’s annual CO2 emissions.
If I were in charge of all this, I would simply grow trees, and turn the wood into building products designed to last at least 100 years. I think it’s a reasonable assumption that the next century will bring us to a place where we have vastly different issues in limiting/removing CO2 emissions.
I don’t go for “Angry Staffer’s” ad hominem abuse of Trump, but he makes an excellent point here.
Does anyone really believe that Biden makes decisions in the absence of a huge team of carefully selected advisors? He could be completely incapacitated and still be a far better solution than dictatorship.
