The "Democrats Miss The Meaning?" Uh, NO, Peggy Noonan Misses The Meaning - Blinded By The Trumpism Mind Virus

As I noted in previous posts, it is often amusing to see the lengths to which conservative writers will bend themselves into pretzels to try to criticize the Brat -in -chief, but without upsetting his brainwashed deplorables, otherwise known as the MAGA Walking dead, i.e.


In a way this "tiptoeing"  approach is understandable given that each time Trump  

gaslights or dispatches another dog whistle his lapdogs are sure to growl, bark and maybe even bite. They also have been shown to have a low tolerance to op-ed writers (even in the WSJ) who don't kiss Trump's butt....errr, "ring" with the proper obeisance.

So it is understandable WSJ op-ed columnist Peggy Noonan ('The Democrats Miss The Meaning' Aug. 22-23, p. A13):

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-democrats-miss-the-meaning-11597980333

would tread carefully, but in this case to the point of contradiction, confusion and utter absurdity.   On the one hand we can applaud her effort to give credit where it is due, in the handling of the Democratic National Convention and its "Zoom" formula.  As Chris Hayes put it last Friday on 'All In: This is what you have when you are in the middle of a pandemic.  This is the new normal"

Indeed, so it isn't necessary to begin one's column writing:

"To be fair in critiquing certain public events you have to be like a judge in the Olympics and factor in degree of difficulty. No one had ever done a Zoom convention before, so no one knew how to do it. Should there be a host each night? Should it be an earnest actress? Does that make us look shallow? Do we want to look shallow?  What hadn’t been done before was done rather poorly, with high schlock content. You got the impression no one creative or daring was authorized to be either."...

Hmmmm.... sour grapes to say the least.

In fact, given the limitations it was a resounding success, all Peggy's twaddle to the  contrary. It was perhaps the "gold standard" for a convention conducted in the middle of a pandemic with only some minor peanut gallery complaints, e.g. the Dems didn't allot enough time for AOC (she did get ample for what she had to do), and there was no Julian Castro  (Castro turned down the invitation to speak).  Other than that the showcasing of diverse people was nothing short of stellar and we especially enjoyed Obama's takedown of the bloated orange fungus fouling the White House, Michelle Obama's warning, and the roll call of the states. The visual for that bested anything seen in historical conventions.    

At least Peggy and I agreed on Barack Obama's masterful speech, as she wrote:

"Barack Obama's speech will stick in history, it won't just slide away. No former president has ever publicly leveled anything like this criticism at a sitting successor."

Noting accurately how Trump "never took the job seriously" and never "grew into the office of the presidency".  How could he,  watching TV  (FOX)  seven hours s day and tweeting nonstop the another three?   As NY Times columnist David Brooks described it:

"His speech was fiercely pro-American and fiercely anti-Donald Trump, showing that to be fiercely pro-American you have to be fiercely anti-Donald Trump."

Well, because Trump is the archetypal anti-American, ready to praise Putin and Russia at the drop of a hat but willing to tear down every constitutional norm and principle that makes this country great.  SO it is cognitively dissonant at one point to read in Noonan's essay:

"Apart from the We the People gauziness there was a nonstop hum of grievance at the convention. To show their ferocious sincerity in the struggle against America's injustices, most of the speakers thought they had to beat the crap out of the country."

Which is, alas, exactly the inverse take to what was said. Rather, the speakers highlighted TRUMP'S injustices done in America's name!  From separating migrant infants from parents and locking them up, to allowing a storm trooper   attack on peaceful protesters, both in D.C. (to enable Dotard to hold a fake bible as a PR stunt) and in Portland.  The mission and portrayal then wasn't to "beat the crap out of the country" but to beat the crap our of what TRUMP has let the country become.  As Tim O'Brien has aptly pointed out (Bloomberg News):

"Trumpism has fostered a cult of personality around Trump, allowing him to posture as the final arbiter of truth and guardian of the downtrodden. But division, chaos an disrepair - and the corruption of the American experiment - are the long term consequences."

Hence, no good thing can really be said of our nation until and unless the Trump interregnum is totally canceled, extirpated. Only then can we rebuild the nation to what it was,  what it could be.  Right now, with the Trump cancer we are pitied around the world, as we should be. 

Trumpism then has defiled not only the office of the presidency, but the government at large - undermining every agency with Trump toadies, from the FDA, to EPA, to USPS,  CDC, DOJ and HHS -  thereby ripping asunder the nation's aspirations and principles as a whole.  See e.g.

Feeling the Consequences of Trump’s Rotten Presidency, First Hand

One wonders why this is so difficult for Noonan to process, then one realizes she's trying to walk a weasel's 'tightrope' and not offend Trump's deplorables too much before the RNC.  

So it is also choice to see her ask: "Do Democrats understand how hunkered down many people feel, psychologically and physically, over the past six months??"

Of course, Peggy, since they have been hunkered down too! Dems are not space aliens walking among us and impervious to the slings and arrows of Covid 19.   They are every bit equally affected, from determining how much elderly relatives need to be protected to how soon their kids can return to real classrooms.   But they are also perceptive enough to know this hunkering down, and re-hunkering down, did not have to be this traumatic. Not if Dotard Trump the wannabe dictator had followed a coordinated strategy to contain the virus - as opposed to pissing the time away.   We know this because it's been well-documented, e.g.

Trump Has Sabotaged America's Coronavirus Response

Excerpt:

" In 2018, the Trump administration fired the government’s entire pandemic response chain of command, including the White House management infrastructure. In numerous phone calls and emails with key agencies across the U.S. government, the only consistent response I encountered was distressed confusion."

 Instead of grasping all this Noonan prefers to divide and sow polarization like Trump - who recall, she asked to resign in a previous column.   Peggy and her sidekicks at the WSJ may not like to hear it but the DNC was light years beyond the asinine clown show on offer from the Repukes this week, in sobriety, diversity and responsibility.  As one MSNBC commentator put it this morning: "The Republican Convention has been just a forum and show for a dictator in training which is why we need to remove him."


See Also:

The 2020 RNC Isn't a Political Convention — It's a Celebration of the Trump Cult

by Heather Digby Parton | August 27, 2020 - 8:12am | permalink

— from Salon


And:

Fascism | Republicans

Were Don Jr. And Kimberly “Coked Up”? Maybe Not, but It's All Part of the Fascist Tradition

by Amanda Marcotte | August 26, 2020 - 8:11am | permalink

— from Salon

And:

My RNC review: Hannibal Lecter’s dinner party was visually sumptuous

And:

First Family

Melania Trump’s Redesigned Rose Garden is a Massacre

by Samuel Vargo | August 27, 2020 - 6:24am | permalink

And:

Donald Trump

Don’t Let This Mad, Manic President Wear You Down

It's Time Now For The Iowa Caucuses To Go To The End Of The Primary Line

It is no surprise that the words "chaos"  and "caucus"  sound very similar.   This is given the latter is actually a form of semi-organized chaos in which voters go to their appointed venues and try to haggle and thrash out their choices with other voters. "I want Bernie, 'cause he stands for my priorities!"  "Hell no, he's too extreme I want Amy!"  "Hell with that, I want Joe Biden, no woman gonna beat Trump!" 

"Can we all just get along and pick someone?"

"NO!"

And so they go at it for hours hoping ultimately for some kind of resolution and consensus toward a majority pick. If there isn't, well then they all haggle and bark again over their "second choices".  In other words, it is the furthest thing from being a straight vote,  i.e. each person voting one candidate - say using a paper ballot- who has the most (oh, with no ensuing argument on reaching that destination.) As you can see the whole process is ripe for confusion and chaos and that's what happened last night and why there's no clear winner yet today. (Yes, a new app also played a role in the confusion, but to me it merely magnified the defects in an already hazy, fluky process.)

 W e learned last night that the results in the Iowa Democratic caucuses were delayed Monday evening, creating widespread confusion among the presidential campaigns. Party officials said the results had been delayed due to “inconsistencies” in the reporting of the results. The reporting problems are believed to have only delayed the results, not called them into question.

According to Mandy McClure - as reported in The NY Times:

“We found inconsistencies in the reporting of three sets of results. In addition to the tech systems being used to tabulate results, we are also using photos of results and a paper trail to validate that all results match and ensure that we have confidence and accuracy in the numbers we report. This is simply a reporting issue, the app did not go down and this is not a hack or an intrusion. The underlying data and paper trail is sound and will simply take time to further report the results.”

I have a hunch the problem is more fundamental:  We need to ditch the whole caucus routine and either bring Iowa into the 21st century (like Colorado has done)  or let them follow the blue states in  primary voting order.   First clue?   As we learn from the Times: "On a conference call with the presidential campaigns, Iowa Democratic Party officials said the delay was because of the new rules requiring caucus leaders to report three sets of numbers to party headquarters, rather than just the delegate totals."

And:

"Representatives from the campaigns became angry at the party officials, who hung up after being asked about when results might be known, according to two people who listened to the call."

What the hell happened? How did this fiasco get started?  From the Times' piece:

Since the caucuses began 50 years ago, Iowa Democrats reported only one number: the delegate count from each of the state’s precincts. But after the razor-close 2016 race in Iowa between Hillary Clinton and Mr. Sanders, Mr. Sanders’s allies pushed the Democratic National Committee to require caucus states to track and report the raw numbers of how many people backed each candidate.

For Iowa, the new reporting standards meant counting how many people backed each candidate on the first and second alignment. That change, requiring the reporting of three separate numbers from each of the state’s more than 1,600 precincts, has slowed the gathering of data to a crawl.

Additionally, many precinct chairs across the state abandoned the new app that was built to help tabulate and report results as they struggled to log in. They opted instead to use the telephone hotline to report."

To me it suggests that previously quoted prominent Democrats are spot on in their assessments of Iowa's importance in the primaries.  In fact, given the state's size, population etc. it is an exaggerated importance. Hence, we ought to question the role of the state in casting the first ballots in the primary season.  This is especially given the largely white, older  demographic of the state as unrepresentative of the diversity of the Dem party. (Oh there are more young people now, see the link at bottom, but the whole event is still rife with problems and hiccups, and again awards disproportionate weight to a minor state.)

 I agree with that take and have indicated in the past the antiquated nature of the caucus in the modern era. It's past time to get back to plain, regular voting modes - you pick candidate X, Y or Z on whatever ballot (preferably paper)  and deliver your choice, no bickering, arguing or haggling. 

If Iowans  - mostly Trump supporters now anyway - wish to keep their ancient primary process, fine. But put the other blue and Dem states (CA, NY etc.) voting first.  We don't need these hayseeds to dictate to us who to vote for or what the national priorities ought to be . Hell, in the CBS spot yesterday morning at some diner or other most didn't even believe impeachment of the orange imp was important.  (If he gets re-elected and cuts their Medicare - as he now plans to do  - they may wish to rethink that but by then it'll be too late.)

Others affirmed to the CBS point guy they were still voting for the Dotard, this is despite many of these (farmers) are still suffering from his tariff war with the Chinese.  That leads me to believe this state will still go to Trump given so many suffer from the mental disease of Trumpism

 Local political columnist Mike Littwin  believes the mental disease of Trumpism is with us to stay, e.g.

• 
  
• 

• Trumpism is a disease without a cure

  Fair&Unbalanced

  • By Mike Littwin, Courtesy of the Colorado Independent

https://www.csindy.com/coloradosprings/trumpism-is-a-disease-without-a-cure/Content?oid=20188784


See also:

Blood Red Sun

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (1)

2020 Elections

View from Iowa Caucus Night

And:

Analysis: The Make-or-Break Night That Could Break Iowa

The state has often had to defend the uncommon power it wields over national politics. Its precarious standing appeared to take another hit.

About That List Of Recently Released "Banished Words"

 Comedian Bill Maher exposed and skewered a politically correct language guide two and a half years ago.

It appears now that a university no one ever heard of (Lake Superior State University) has just released its 43rd annual list of words "banished from the Queen's English for Misuse, Overuse and General Uselessness".  In media accounts of the release (e.g. "School Expels Tons of Words", The Denver Post, Dec. 31, p. 10A). the claim is made that it is "a tongue- in- cheek, nonbinding list of 14 words and phrases."  In other words, the school seeks to evade responsibility by portraying its list in a facetious, non-serious way. This way, there's less chance of being skewered for political correctness or verbal nannyism like Bill Maher did with a language guide issued by the University of New Hampshire in August, 2015.

But the fact is that the northern Michigan school knew what it was doing and attempted - as it has the previous 42 years - to make a point concerning the preferable use of language. They'd garner much more respect if they actually took ownership instead of trying to use the "tongue-in-cheek" trope to dodge being a target.

What are these words and phrases that have been banished?  The D. Post article lists a number of them as follows:

- "let me ask you this"

- "unpack"

- "impactful"

- "nothingburger"

- "tons"

- "dish"

-"drill down"

- "let that sink in"

-"pre-owned"

- "on boarding/ off boarding"

-"hot water heater"

- "gig economy"

- "covfefe"

- "fake news"  (the top vote getter)

According to Lake Superior State spokesman John Shibley, "more words were expected" given the "divisive 2016 election and the deepening divisions in government and the U.S. electorate".

But as I pointed out in previous posts, one aim of language control in whatever guise - ''tongue-in-cheek" list or "more humanized language guide" -- is thought control.  It is an effort  to disparage and inhibit free expression, including emotional tone, of what people have experienced. In the case of the 2016 nightmare election, millions - according to the book 'The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump'- are suffering from forms of severe depression, PTSD and even bipolar disorder brought on by Trump's ascension to power and his chaotic rule. Psychiatrists are evidently doing a land office business trying to help many in the anti-Trump populace. These people's emotions are further triggered by certain speeches, references made by the Dotard or his hired sycophants like Sara Huckleberry Sanders.

Wifey is among these, and is still dealing with the raw emotions of a nation in the throes of Trumpism - led by a gaggle of assholes determined to tear down all regulations, and our democratic norms and institutions (including a free press), as they brainwash their clueless minions.  Yesterday while watching Maddow, she must have screamed and banged her fists into the side of her recliner at least 12 times in 40 minutes. "Look at this shit! Have you ever seen or heard the likes of this!"

Should she or millions of others be denied (or criticized in a snide way) for their use of stock words or phrases  in the course of emotional venting? I think not.  So no, there is or was no basis at all to  "increase" the list of banished words. If anything, in a toxic environment like the one we have now in the U.S. more verbal leeway ought to be permitted, not less.

If there is one phrase I do agree with on the list it is "fake news".  This is used by Trumpists and their followers to smear actual press reports, especially revelations of how Dotard and his cabal are destroying our Republic piece by piece.  For example, anything that now comes over the transom regarding Robert Mueller's investigation, is instantly pilloried as "fake news". In this way  the nation is being divided into two hostile camps and - as some have pointed out (e.g. in Bandy X. Lee's book on Trump's danger) in a manner not seen since the Civil War.  (I have also warned unless these two versions of reality are reconciled  among citizens we may see a 2nd Civil War.)

In fact, the other side of Foxite, fake news blaring nitwits have now even claimed Mueller is trying to engineer a "coup" against their little Dotard. Words like that can have real consequences in the real world, none of which are sanguine.

So, if in an atmosphere like this people are inclined to overuse a few words ("unpack") I have no problems.  Let me also add here that many of us in this toxic Trump environment will find our own ways to express our outrage - and yes, we need MORE outrage,  not less - as conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt recently tried to argue, e.g.

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/12/29/2017-launched-our-addiction-to-outrage/

This again is merely a way for the Right's assorted hacks to try to control the (mainly Left) reaction and rightful outrage against the Trump Imperium. And no surprise it is especially directed at all the groups in the Resistance movement - now marching toward seizing back the House for the Dems in November.  What better way to do that than to depict  outrage as a kind of addictive pathology, as opposed to the  energy bearing  "fuel" that will ultimately bring down the Trumpite cabal? For me? I plan to keep my outrage amped up until all these bastards are gone, full stop.  What is that saying the Occupy movement often used?  "If you're not outraged then you're not paying attention".

And if you're not paying attention you're just citizen road kill. You could as well be one of those zombies on the "Walking Dead'.

In my own case, I express much of my outrage via my blog posts (check the previous post and links therein).  Because of the intensity with which I sometimes express myself I realize and understand that many posts - especially the political subset- are not for everyone. Indeed, wifey is unable to handle my political posts because they are "too intense".   So be it, but I am not about to change. For me it's a kind of therapy in Trump land, and I make no apologies. If you're unable to handle that then go to a poetry or puppy blog or "better homes and gardens".  I will never be writing or talking "through the flowers" to use the phrase of my sister-in-law Krimhilde.

 For the same reason I disdain the use of euphemisms which merely seek to cloak reality rather than expose it to consciousness.   Hence, I have and always will reject the use of "enhanced interrogation" for torture, "scandal" for conspiracy, "passing" for death or "sized person" for obese.

Interestingly, Marist College (in its own "egregious language" survey) also agreed that "fake news"  made its own list of "most annoying words" - behind "whatever".  The latter word, incidentally, I have no problems with - for anyone 12 years of age  or under. But if you're older than that you need to find a replacement word when you reach the point of exasperation. I mean you're now supposed to be more than 5 years beyond reaching the age of reason.

Fair enough?

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/henry-giroux/77138/challenging-trumps-language-of-fascism

Trump As Hitler Wannabe - From The Keyboards Of Trumpies!

No, I have to write them exactly as they were written, and a more perfect assessment of DONALD TRUMP has hitherto never been presented:

"Seriously, this fuckin’ Hitler wannabe needs to be locked away in a dungeon somewhere – preferably away from any free societies!! (a frontal lobotomy wouldn’t hurt, either!)."

Yeppers, a Hitler wannabe!  As Bill Maher's guests put it last night, there is a parallel between Hitler's populist rise in 1930s Germany and also Trump's in the US of A. In each case, know nothings back him, and as Bill himself put it, they are now trying to blame liberals for the tilt to Trumpism. See e.g.

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/14/youre_not_gonna_get_to_blame_us_for_donald_trump_bill_mahers_tired_of_the_right_saying_liberals_caused_the_billionaires_rise/


Are U fuckin' kidding me? The Right itself is responsible, because as Maher's guest Jeremy Scahill noted, there is an appeal for fascism in these denizens of the country. And Trump is doing no less than mouthing their own most fervent aspirations to have a Hitler-like master telling them when to sleep, read, burp or poop.

The funniest segment was the opening monologue when Bill cited a WaPo report that Trump had "masqueraded as a spokesman" to brag on his sexual liaisons. (Using the nom-de-plume "John Miller"). As he said: "Imagine if Hillary had used a fake identity to call in and report her sex exploits". Well, she'd have been diagnosed with schizoid personality disorder and administered ECT three times a day in a frigging' straight jacket at Bellevue.

 The Economist really put the Trumpies in perspective in a Dec. 5 piece, noting (p. 30):

"The anxiety Trump supporters betray by looking for scapegoats says most, of course, about themselves. Typically members of the white lower middle class, they are at once jealous of the small privileges that distinguish them from the toilers below, and bitterly resentful of the faraway government that provides their Social Security, VA care and Medicare.

Remonstrating in hard times, they are the "radical centre" in academic jargon, who turned out before for George Wallace, a populist southern Democrat who ran for President four times in the 1960s and 70s."

The article then identifies the iconic Trump supporter of this "radical center" with a character  from a John Updike novel named Rabbit Angstrom "from whose flabby mouth dripped endless expressions of impotence, anger and glum humor...having retired to Florida to nurse his disappointment".

Subsequently, The Economist (May 7, p. 21) observed in its article on Donald Trump ('Fear Trumps Hope'):

"He would be a disastrous president. If Mr. Trump's diagnosis of what ails America is bad, his prescriptions for fixing it are catastrophic"

For example, his tax -debt plans are magnitudes more fantastical than Sanders' most extravagant socialist ideas. The Economist again:

"He has pledged to pay down $19 trillion national debt in eight years while at the same time cutting taxes by $10 trillion. Given that he has also pledged to protect Social Security, the Committee for a  Responsible Federal Budget has estimated he would have to cut other areas (e.g. VA, Medicare, military-defense) by 93 percent to meet his objective."

And yet he plans to build up the military! Even the Economist agrees that if Bernie is in fantasy land, the Donald is Donald Duck stuck in "Never Never land".  Hell, the Trumpies don't even seem to recognize Trump is no friend of standard capitalism, he'd rather have corporate or pro-Trump socialism! Prof. David Cay Johnston on Chris Hayes'  May 6 All In tonight reminded one and all that back in 1990, the deadbeat Donald Trump couldn't even pay his damned bills- even though he claimed to be a billionaire. But he got bailed out then because the state of New Jersey Casino Control Division took his side against his bankers - to whom he owed tons of money. In Prof. Johnston's words:

"It was government intervention in the market that saved him."

If you want an example of a pseudo-capitalist invoking socialism there it is. Yet his blind supporters caterwaul day in and day out that it's socialists like Bernie who are the threat. But as Johnston pointed out, it's "Trumponomics" - paying back a deadbeat's cents on the dollar for debt that could truly wreck this country.

It's incredible that demented Trumpies paint Bernie Sanders as a crazed commie loon when their guy is a certified fascist freakazoid (and schizoid with more than one persona) who has also benefited from gov't socialism. What was especially hilarious is how a particular blogger raked Bernie over the coals based on a FOX ('The Five') excerpt of his Maddow interview (dinging the corporate media), dunning him as an idiot for not knowing Maddow's MSNBC was part of the corporate media. Guess this feller never checked the original source (Maddow's actual interview) where Bernie clearly puts Maddow on the spot noting MSNBC is owned by Comcast - "Part of  the corporate media". As I said when bloggers get their sources second hand they can't be trusted. Even when they do they often can't put 2+ 2 together. Sad.

Alas too, they appear they still haven't learned their lesson - that if they keep on brashly bashing Bernie they will lose, as in L-O-S-E whatever Sanders' supporters they may need to overtake "Killary". But hey, maybe they don't care and their "free speech" rights are more important to them than their man having even the chance of a horse turd in a tornado to land in one piece. (Or in Trump's case, winning the presidency).

See also:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/06/irish-student-hitler-1921-daniel-binchy

Brussels Attacks Fear? You're Still More Likely To Be Killed By An NRA -Backing Terrorist With An AR-15

Bwaaaaa! Daddy Reepo pwotekt me fwum dem bad guys! Bwaaaahahah

"Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for the purpose of a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Here we go again, another brutal ISIS attack, this time in Brussels - horrific scenes unfolding after one scumball detonated a suitcase bomb at the airport, and another POS blew himself up with his suitcase at a subway station. And what is the response from too many in the "land of the free and the home of the brave"? Well, to summarize a headline from salon.com: "panic, hysteria and Trumpism". 

How manifested? To take an example we beheld Ted Cruz in the hours after the attacks knee-jerk spouting that we "need to empower law enforcement to patrol in Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized". To which NYPD chief Bill Bratton on CBS this a.m. fairly spat: "He doesn't know what the hell he is talking about! I have 1,000 Muslim officers on my force and all are dedicated. The last thing we want is alienating law abiding Muslims because once they do become radicalized it's much harder to de-radicalize them."  But Cruz' stupid take was echoed by Trump and the Trumpkin brigade.

Seriously, it is depressing to witness these types of fearful reaction - especially by someone who lived through the Cuban Missile crisis when the entire world was threatened with vaporization and we had only the good sense and judgment of JFK to rely on. Thankfully, he rejected the Joint Chiefs'  demand to bomb and invade Cuba which would certainly have caused Castro to unleash at least 93 Russian made IRBMs on the eastern U.S., followed by a massive U.S. counter strike then a Soviet counter counter strike. Total nuclear exchange within 8 hours? About 690 megatons with 400 million dead and the rest of the world wishing they were. 

THAT was something real to be terrified about because it affected directly the existence of every man, woman and child on Earth. All stood to lose their lives either in the initial exchanges or from radiation sickness later. Today, in the wake of an isolated Brussels terror attack? Not so much. It barely makes the higher alert register - or should. Hence, I was glad to see Obama attending a baseball game in Cuba yesterday instead of rushing home in a panic, reinforcing the panicked portrayals and endless loops of Brussels' bedlam by the sensation-sotted U.S. media.

Well, there are some media exceptions. A Dec. 5, 2015 NY Times editorial in the wake of the San Bernardino killings noted, for example:

"The death toll from jihadist terrorism on American soil since the Sept. 11 attacks -- 45 people -- is about the same as the 48 killed in terrorist attacks motivated by white supremacist and other right-wing extremist ideologies.... And both tolls are tiny compared with the tally of conventional murders, more than 200,000 over the same period.”

Now, any dumbo even with zero math background can surely see that 200,000 >> 45! I mean, how hard can this be? And that greater number was accomplished by high powered weapons and handguns, almost all purchased legally with the benediction of the NRA.  In other words, we're killing each other at a rate more than 4,400 times that which the terrorists are!

So why isn't this being processed? There are two possible reasons: 1) Americans are prevented from knowing the facts, the stats and hence don't process the ridiculous difference in threat, and 2) their reptilian brains over react to isolated terror events - magnifying them as proximate threats when they are distant ones. In such cases, the TV scenes have taken control of their amygdalas and viewers are then ruled by atavistic emotions more than reason.

 The unholy truth is that most shootings are  NOT ideological or random but rather domestic (in people's homes) - either suicides or one spouse (usually male) killing the other after a fiery argument.   Assaying all mass shootings between 2009 and 2015, the Huffington Post found that 70 percent occurred in the home. Of these, 57 percent involved a family member or current or former intimate partner. 81 percent of the victims were women and children. These killings were not done by 'crazies' but usually normal people who simply lost it in the midst of a heated argument and reached for the weapon nearest and dearest - a gun.

See e.g.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/65051/what-rough-beast-slaughter-is-the-standard-in-the-us

These killings were not done by 'crazies'  or Islamic terrorists but usually normal people who simply lost it in the midst of a heated argument and reached for the weapon nearest and dearest - a gun.
In this light, and as the NY Daily News back in December featured on its headline, it is the NRA's Wayne LaPierre who qualifies as the real terrorist because it is HE who has made available the millions of lethal weapons to kill so many Americans (many more than ISIS could) by refusing to implement sane gun laws.

The purpose of all this? To show the relative risk of an American being killed in a terrorist attack here in the States is vanishingly small. Small enough not to lose sleep over, cancel plans for an outing - say to a cinema or ball game, and certainly so small that one would not wish to suspend civil liberties for any demographic in our population. Because to do so would be to play directly into the hands of the ISIS vermin and their zombie lackeys.

Be alert and aware, of course, but in an intelligent as opposed to paranoid and hysterical sense. Note things unusual and report them, but don't go off the rails seeking to expunge the basic principles embodied in the Bill of Rights, especially the fourth amendment. If we give in to fear we cease to be who we are and mutate instead into a fear-governed caricature unworthy of liberty.

As for the Brussels' news, tune in to get the occasional update but don't stay glued to the tube and this kind of news on an endless loop. It just feeds fear, and more panic and hysteria.

And besides, you risk becoming a Trumpkin.

WSJ Provides A Reality Check For Trump And His "Paranoid-Style" Groupies

Trump screams at his followers to "punch the hell out of those bums" at a recent rally.

 Let us accept the proposition that Donald Trump (aka Donald Drumpf) is roughly the equivalent of a five year old pitching a fit in order to inflate his self esteem as Bill Maher portrayed him Friday night. As a corollary we can regard his supporters as also five year olds, or perhaps as Peggy Noonan  recently described them in her WSJ 'Declarations' column (March 19, A13):

"Maybe, to be charitable, a lot of Mr. Trump's supporters are 14 year old boys acting out on their mom's computer while she works her second shift"

Which occurs when you behold their over use of f-bombs and the like in their assorted blog screeds and tweets and especially the need to find scapegoats wherever they can, whether in immigrants,, "rag heads", Obummer "apes", "Bernie's  Gestapo", "Killary Feminazis" or sundry others they blame for wrecking Trump's assorted rallies. But funny thing, they never ever blame their Hitlerite hero himself for drawing this negative blowback by the use of violent language and even regarding it as some kind of "entertainment". ("This is fun! A lot better than a boring ol' rally!")

Thus Noonan's subsequent comment (ibid.):

"America is an imperfect country populated by imperfect people, but there would be a reason Mr. Trump draws the particular kind of garbage he draws, what is it?"

Well, it was once accurately described by historian Richard Hofstadter in his book, The Paranoid Style in American Politics as a streak of nasty, angry, scapegoating paranoia that's been seeded almost from the time of the nation's founding.  Many believed it had reached its apotheosis in the McCarthy commie witch hunts of the 1950s. (See the excellent movie 'Trumbo', starring Brian Cranston, to gain an insight.)

At that time the American Right was so paranoid about commies infiltrating the country and hiding under bedroom community beds that it even led to  TOPPS "Know Your Communists" trading cards, e.g..


 The aim was to inculcate ‘Communist Recognition’ in children  from 8- 10 years of age and get them to hate this system even before they knew what it was about. The garish depictions, such as that shown of Mao Tse-Tung with ghoulish green face, helped to reinforce the propaganda.   Hysteria grew as an admixture as grade schoolers - like I was in 1952 - had to duck under desks in regular drills to "escape the fallout from Communist atomic bombs". Oh, and btw, did you know commie H-bombs were much more devastating than the 'Murican variety?

"Commies" then - like Muslims now-  were the "devils" of the 1950s and even the 1960s as the term was unloaded  - usually by John Birchers - on any relatively liberal person and even John F. Kennedy. He came under suspicion first on account of making a hidden deal with Nikita Khrushchev to end the Cuban Missile crisis in October, 1962. (That was to remove all the Jupiter missiles from Turkey six months after the Russians removed theirs from Cuba.)  Then, in August, 1963, Kennedy signed a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, also with Khrushchev. The Right went ape shit because it included bans on anti-missile defense systems. Third, JFK signed NSAM 263 to pull all personnel out of Viet Nam by 1965.  That definitely put him in commie territory as he ignored the "domino theory" circulating at the time.

But Kennedy's biggest faux pas - certainly to the then CIA and security state- was initiating a rapprochement with Fidel Castro. That probably sealed his fate as a "commie'" that had to be killed, by the same CIA that learned of it (the public didn't until decades later).

All this, as Hofstadter noted, served to spur on the "paranoid style". As he wrote then (ca.1964):

American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority.


 But unknown to him, that presumed apotheosis was a mirage. In fact, it was postponed until the much later incarnation we're seeing now with the rise of Trumpism. No longer is this breed of paranoia confined to a radical right nut like Barry Goldwater - who had zero chance of winning the WH in 1964 anyway-  but to a brash, loudmouth demagogue who has already compiled so many delegates in primaries he could well nail the Reep nomination and also gain the White House.

Hence, it was gratifying to read a WSJ editorial ('A Trump Reality Check', Mar 18, p. A10) that put Trump's so called successes in perspective, not only for this wannabe Hitler but for his groupies too. Imagine if the Weimar German press, ca Jan. 1932, had delineated such a reality check on Adolf Hitler and his rabble rousing anti-Semitic, anti-Socialist, anti-Communist rants, and how that might have altered the outcome of the German elections that year and the next. Hitler, btw, always boasted he had used Weimar Democracy itself to gain power, after which he destroyed that democracy via the 1933 "Enabling Act" ( Ermächtigungsgesetz ) that dissolved the Reichstag and turned all its powers to the newly formed Reich government.

The WSJ editorial notes for example, that despite his claim to be "unstoppable" his actual numbers to date show him to be the "weakest Republican front runner since Gerald Ford in 1976."

For example, the Journal notes that by mid -March of 2012,  Mitt Romney "had carried the popular vote in 21 states and won 57 percent of the delegates."

By comparison, Trump "has 18 states and 47 percent of delegates" - not very unstoppable when one does the comparison. So one has to wonder how it his that the Trumpsters are so worked up  - even dissing on Mitt now - when their own guy is still three states behind and ten percentage point in delegate differential.

Are Trumpies' paranoid delusions messing up their brains? The argument of a divided field sucking up Trump's extra votes also doesn't wash because, as the WSJ notes: Romney "was in a three way race with Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich with Ron Paul also nabbing votes"

Adding:

"John McCain in 2008 was even more of a consensus pick ...by this point the Senator had won 24 states and 59 % of allocated delegates."

The WSJ goes on to point out Trump "has fervent support but equally passionate opposition among Republicans", noting his "net favorable rating in the  GOP is only 22 percent" (That is, the share of people with positive views minus those with negative views).

Going on to single out the Real Clear Politics polling average which shows twice as many adults have negative views (61%) as positive (32.5%).  Meanwhile, "Gallup reports he has a higher unfavorable rating than any other nominated candidate from either major party dating back to 1992".

And that includes that socialist guy Bernie Sanders, who the Trumpites believe is dispatching  guerrillas  to disrupt their stupid rallies. (Note: the main protest organizers, Moveon.org, have no relation to Sanders's campaign.)

Of course, none of this ought to make the Dems feel too smug. The reason is that Hillary has negatives almost as high as Trump's. While TIME's Joe Klein often gets things wrong because of his Neoliberal lens, he was correct that Hillary has to be a much better, more nuanced (and less rote - and screaming) persona if she faces Trump in the election (Mar. 28, p. 41).

Her planned appearance at the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) convention this next week (Mar. 20-22) is also not going to help her with the Dem left base, which is already leaning to either staying home on Nov. 8th, or writing in Bernie's name if he concedes or loses out to Clinton.   I mean, the mere sight of her appearing along side the likes of Trump, Cruz and Kasich is not designed to appeal to Left core supporters that she will need in the fall - assuming she still is the nominee.

Hillary in one forum (Town hall)  response conceded she isn't the political charmer who has the "poetry" of those like hubby Bill or Obama. But as Klein put it, "she's our own quinoa and kale salad, nutritious but bland. The human embodiment of the Establishment Trump is running against." In addition, she harkens back to the politicians of 20 or more years ago with "too many oratorical switchbacks"
"Our very own quinoa and kale salad, nutritious but bland". (Joe Klein, TIME, Mar. 28, p. 41)

Klein concludes that if she and Trump square off she will have to grow into a modern politician - with modern oratorical skills beyond that screechy loud voice ("only used if you're angry"), and in a hurry. That has to start now with  her remaining Town halls with Sanders, and also avoiding the wrong optics - especially to Sanders's supporters. (Hint: Stay away from that AIPAC meet which will be seen as blatant pandering for the Jewish national vote.)

Colorado Springs Gazette columnist, Barry Fagin, has described (Mar. 8)  politics as an "accepted form of violence between tribes of voters" in our society.  Charles Krauthammer in his recent column  says "politics is the civilized substitute for settling things the old-fashioned way- laying your opponent out on a stretcher".   He goes on to write: "What is so disturbing today is that suffusing our politics is not just an air of division but an air of menace"

 Indeed, and that menace may well spill over into more overt violence in this election cycle. This worry is real and so long as Trump incites violent memes with his rhetoric we are at risk. But don't look for his lackeys to support that because as one observer noted, he is channeling their Id - like Hitler did of too many Germans in 1932--33.

The problem is, reality check or not, who in the candidate field has the courage, principles, and ferocity to stop his advance and provide a real choice to the American people? I see no one other than Bernie Sanders, but alas, too many of my countrymen are too cowed to vote for him - as opposed to the much worse candidates (including one under current FBI investigation) they do know.

If we are cowardly (or ignorant) in our choice we shall have to live with the consequences after January 20 next year.