Friday, May 3, 2024

Trump Allies' Plan To Sideline Fed & Devalue U.S. Dollar May Prove An Economic Calamity If Dotard Gets Into Office

                                                                      

                     "I gonna devalue the dollar and people're gonna love it!"


"Even as Republicans denounce President Biden for the inflation that occurred on his watch, Trump’s advisers have been floating policy ideas that could be far more inflationary than anything that has happened so far...There are also reports that Trump advisers, obsessed with the trade deficit, want to devalue the dollar, which would indeed help exports but would also be clearly inflationary — raising import prices and overheating a U.S. economy that is already running hot. (In fact, our economic strength is probably the main reason the dollar has been rising.) 

And even as they talk about weakening the dollar, Trump advisers are reportedly discussing punishing other countries that reduce their use of the greenback — which seems both contradictory and to involve a delusional view of how much economic power even America possesses." - Paul Krugman, 'Trump Is Flirting With Quack Economics', April 29, NY Times

How catastrophic would a second Trump presidency be? Worse than you think. Worse, even, than I had feared — before I read his recent Time magazine interview in which Donald Trump lays out his plans. They are, in a word, insane. Imagine the National Guard, perhaps aided by active-duty military units, fanning out across the country to round up and deport all undocumented migrants, believed to number roughly 11 million


Imagine these men, women and children being held pending deportation in vast detention camps. That’s what Trump told Time he would do. .. Imagine the National Guard also being sent into cities to fight crime, whether or not governors request such assistance.” -  Eugene Robinson, Washington Post yesterday,  ‘(Trump keeps warning us about his second term. Are you listening?’)

The Wall Street Journal front page story from last weekend ('Trump Allies Draw Up Plans To Blunt Fed's Independence') didn't mince words, noting: 

"Donald Trump's allies are quietly drafting proposals to erode the Federal Reserve's independence if the former president wins a second term....Former Trump administration officials and other supporters have in recent months discussed a range of proposals from incremental policy changes to assertions the president himself should play a role in setting interest rates.....The 10-page document also includes a plan for devaluing the dollar."  

 Seriously?  These forlorn MAGA maniacs are actually considering devaluing the buck as well as setting interest rates to suit Trump?  Do any of his munchkins have any idea how much more misery they will be in if he goes through with it? How much more they will pay at the grocery, given how much less their greenbacks will be worth - not to mention the hurt from the 10 percent tariffs the twit plans to impose on all foreign goods (which is really a tax on Americans.) 

 I mean, just consider the sheer chutzpah entailed in going public with such a plan  six months before a general election. And with the orange-hued standard bearer of the cult having to appear in court each day for a trial over his sleazy sexual hijinks, and using go-betweens to try to conceal them using fraudulent transactions.  

Given how much this Turd sleeps during the proceedings  e.g. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/04/15/trump-fell-asleep-in-court-twice-reporters-say/?sh=5eeb52795688


it is a wonder he has anyone with two brain cells ready to vote for his sorry ass. But there are, including many in the key swing states. They believe they are so much worse off now with Joe Biden, that they are prepared to put a traitor maggot rapist back into power, as well as doing so indirectly.  This in reference to the young voters who are now bailing on Biden because of Gaza, believing a Trump term will be better.  Think again, kiddies! Trump will pick up where he left off in 2017 with Muslim deportations.  

But none of this should be surprising, given the Trump MAGA cult is now so confident they will have enough goobers to pull the levers for Dotard  Nov. 5 they even allowed an interview with TIME magazine on his extremist plans, e.g.  


Which include: carrying out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, construction of migrant detention camps, deploying the U.S. military (in violation of Posse Comitatus) to herd immigrants into camps and have deployments at the border and inland.

Trump will also: let red states (i.e. the former Confederacy) monitor women's pregnancies (using GPS on cells) and prosecute those who violate abortion bans.

He also plans to: gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, e.g. to shoot protestors, and oh by the way - close the White House pandemic preparedness office and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his assertion the 2020 election was stolen. 

The closing of the pandemic preparedness office is especially noisome and short sighted given we may be in store for an avian flu pandemic.  Are his minions really ready for truck loads of corpses in body bags to be piled up like cordwood?  

It isn't at all perplexing that the Trump blueprint was first laid out by paleo-conservative icon Edmund Burke. He believed the great mass of humans were incapable of reason and maintained "their base inclinations should be frequently thwarted, their will controlled, their passions brought into subjection."  

This could only be accomplished by "subjecting them to a power outside themselves."  Sick sociopathic narcissist that he is, Trump fancies himself grabbing that power and he yearns to wield it. He just needs to hope enough unreasoning cretins are lurking in the battleground states to vote him back in. 

 Back to the plans for the Federal Reserve.  Most worrisome aspect, according to the WSJ: 

 "Trump former advisers with more traditional views worry of consequences if political interference leads investors to conclude the central bank is willing to tolerate higher inflation.  These could include: raising long term interest rates on mortgages, auto loans, credit cards and student debt - especially when the government has to roll over trillions of dollars in debt annually."

One former Trump administration official described the prospect of Trump influencing interest rates as horrifying." 

 We also learn from the piece that Sen. Thom Tillis (R, NC) "wouldn't condone efforts to interfere with fed policy."  Also, "lawyers studying the issue believe the president lacks the power to fire Fed governors over a policy disagreement."

But this stuff is emanating from people unacquainted with the ways of autocrats and wannabe dictators.  Because, for sure, if Trump manages to sneak in again he will extend his reach and power to all federal agencies as well as purported "independent" ones like the Federal Reserve.  They also forget Trump had no trouble firing former attorneys general, and those in other high places.

Again, people need to wake the hell up and crawl out of the news cycle aggravation pit.  The one focusing on Gaza, Pro-Palestinian college protests, inflation or whatever other hobgoblin is currently fucking up so many brains as evidenced in polls showing the orange maggot even or ahead of Biden. None of which makes sense given the orange fungal roach admitted days ago he'd only accept the election results if he won.

See Also:

Trump keeps warning us about his second term. Are you listening?

And:

by Thom Hartmann | May 2, 2024 - 6:27am | permalink

— from The Hartmann Report


TIME magazine reporter Eric Cortellessa spent hours interviewing Donald Trump, producing a shocking cover story this week. Converting one of his opening paragraphs into bullet points for readability, he summarized that Trump fully plans:

— “To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland.
— “He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans.
— “He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers.
— “He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding.
— “He is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury.
— “He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense.
— “He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.”


Solution to Mensa Math Brain Buster

 

Let r be the length of the radius of each circle. Then the area of each circle inside and outside the polygon is:  π r2 .

A2 = the area  of the 17 circles minus the area of all circular sectors inside the polygon, i.e.

A2 =  17 π r  -  A1


The internal angles of an n-gon (polygon of n sides) total: 

(n - 2) π radians.  (This is given that an n-gon can be divided into (n-2) triangles and the sum of the angles of a triangle =  π  radians (180 deg)


The particular polygon has 17 sides, so its internal angles total: 

(17 - 2) π   =   15 π  radians 


The area of the circular sectors inside the polygon is equal to the area of all 17 circles multiplied by the proportion that is inside the polygon.


A1  =17 π r2 ·  15 π  / 17 · 2π ) =  π r2 · 15/2

=  (15/2π r2


A2 =  17 π r  -  A1 =  17 π r2   - ( π r2 · 15/2) = 

π r2 (1715/2) =  (19/2π r2 


A2 - A1 =  (19/2π r2  -   (15/2π r2  =  (4/2) π r2


=  2 π r2



Answers to Logical -Analytic Questions


Answers from the April 29 logic puzzle post:


1. (A)    L, M, N, O, P,


2. (B) M and L


3. (A) L is earlier than M


4.(E)O is done on Wednesday 


5. (E) P on Tuesday


6. (C) Wednesday 

Wednesday, May 1, 2024

Mensa Math Brain Buster Puzzle

 



The pattern shows 17 congruent circles in an irregular ring such that each circle is tangent to two other circles.

A polygon is created by joining the centers of the circles as shown in the diagram. 

Let A1 = the area of all circular sectors inside the polygon (i.e. the blue sectors)

Let A2 = the area  of all the circular sectors outside the polygon (i.e. the lavender sectors).

Find A2 - A1.

(Answer on Friday)

A Heartless Monster Who Shoots Her Child's Pet Dog In Cold Blood? She Has No Place Near The Top Of A Ticket

                                 

"You gonna butcher immigrants for Trump like ya did me?"

The psychotic South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem admits that she shot and killed her 14-month-old dog, ‘Cricket’, who “attacked chickens”.  In fact this moral degenerate was trying to "train" her child's pet dog to hunt and she didn't like its failures so wasn't paying attention when it turned its attention to chickens.  'Wha happen, mommy? You ordered me to hunt, didn't say which critter'. 'Mommy' didn't care. She blew the pup away and dumped her in a gravel pit. The monstrous bitch – a perfect fit for the MAGA cult – also admitted she executed a pet goat.  She claimed it smelled “musky,” so she shot it and dumped it into the same gravel pit as Cricket.  Trouble was she noticed it still twitching so she walked down into the pit and fired a second round into the goat's head.  She reveals all this in her soon-to-be-released book, No Going Back: The Truth on What’s Wrong With Politics and How We Move America Forward.

Move America forward? Or move America backward to butchering more innocents including people the Trump MAGA cult no longer has a use for?

'Never Trump' conservative Charlie Sykes offered a possible explanation for Noem’s bestial behavior during a Monday, April 29 appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

Noem, Sykes argued, might have thought that the dog-shooting story would impress Trump.  Why not?  A monster performing a monstrous deed to impress another monster- who’s already gone on record asserting he plans to use the military to put 11 million immigrants in detention camps if he’s elected.  No thought at all as to how much that will cost the U.S. economy in taking millions of workers away from doing jobs no American wants. But buttholes like Dotard Trump don’t process such minutiae.

Sykes told "Morning Joe" hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski:

”Look, this book is a campaign book. It is a resume to be Donald Trump's vice president. And she thought it was a good idea to include this story —let's tell this short about myself, how I took this puppy and shot him in the gravel pit."

The conservative journalist/author continued, "So, why would she have done this? The obvious explanation is she thought that Donald Trump would like it. She thought that this would be a net-positive for her. “

And I believe it was, given the dictator-wannabe must be looking for a sidekick to assist in his planned retribution rampage. That's assuming there are sufficient 'swing state'  Americans distracted enough, (e.g. by Gaza, by inflation etc.) to either vote for the cockroach, not vote at all, or vote 3rd party.

Hell, one can certainly imagine Trump considering Noem as VP candidate given she now checks all the 'boxes' for retribution, violence, and moral degeneracy - like him. And we know he also has a fetish for all manner of violence up to murder, and possibly beyond. He talks about shooting shoplifters, extrajudicial murders of drug dealers and offing protesters. Back in 2015 he boasted he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it. And only recently he even insisted that the decorated Gen. Mark Milley ought to have been “executed” for treason.  He also confided to former AG Bill Barr that he has considered executing all his political enemies.  

The latest TIME issue now on the newsstands,


also delivers in black and white Trump's plans for a new term, assuming voters won't mind if he gets convicted in the NY hush money case.

Those plans include giving police what's called "qualified immunity" so they can shoot anyone on sight for committing a perceived illegal act and not face any consequences.

For Trump wannabe adviser Stephen Miller – who bears an astounding likeness to Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels,


 What's not to like, especially for a wannabe Fuhrer like Donald Trump?  



After all it was Miller who had conceived of locking up immigrant infants barely five years ago. He probably mused: “Heck if she can shoot a pup and a goat we can probably get her to help execute immigrants in our detention camps.” 

For those who believe this beyond the pale or "histrionic", think again.  My late German friend Kurt Braun,


Back in 1978 showed us film-videos of Nazi depredations from his archives. As a former Hitler Youth (pressed into service under threat to his mother) he also recalled how part of their training had entailed shooting and killing small animals: kittens, puppies, rabbits.  As Kurt explained it: 

"They believed if we could take the lives of small, defenseless animals, it would break down any mental or emotional barriers to taking the lives of humans."

 Noem, by her act of monstrosity on two helpless animals, has shown openly and graphically what any future Trump term would look like: coarse, brutal, barbaric, violent and vengeful. Are enough voters in swing states paying attention, or do they even care? Time will tell but the polling thus far isn't sanguine.

See Also:

by Amanda Marcotte | May 1, 2024 - 6:52am | permalink

— from Salon

Squint hard enough and perhaps one can see how Gov. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., thought it was a winning political move to brag about murdering a puppy. It's the same trolling strategy used by MAGA Republicans like Donald Trump, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas: Say something extremely evil, stupid, or both. Draw the inevitable liberal outrage or mockery. Play the victim, claiming that it's more proof the "elites" hate the common sense working folk of MAGA. Then sit back and watch the dollars and followers roll in.

For Noem, however, her tale of shooting her dog Cricket is not working out quite as planned. Sure, she got the predictable outrage and disgust from Democrats. But she also seems to have alienated the very Trump supporters she was trying to impress with her bloodthirsty tale. Fox News let their displeasure be known by doing a round-up story of conservative social media influencers denouncing Noem, often with quite harsh language. "Did she just intentionally end her career?" asked trollish podcaster Tim Poole. Other high-profile right-wingers blasted Noem as an "Absolute Psycho" and called for her to be "criminally charged for animal abuse." Even the notorious right-wing troll Catturd — who has 2.4 million Twitter followers because he acts as vile as his name suggests — drew a line at killing your child's beloved pet.

And:

by Jaime O’Neill | May 2, 2024 - 7:05am | permalink

You’ve heard about the death of little Cricket, right, a nice little pup, dead at 14 months old, which isn’t even all that old in dog years. He (or perhaps she, the details aren’t entirely clear) was shot to death, with malice aforethought, by Kristi Noem, the not-so-honorable Governor of South Dakota. She hated Cricket. She was unrepentant about killing the little dog. He (or perhaps she) didn’t take to training, didn’t like being controlled, wouldn't always do what other creatures would have her (or him) do. Like Bartleby the Scrivener, the dog just preferred not to. In other words, Cricket had something of a mind of her (or his) own, and boy howdy, the right-wingers hate that in a person, and especially in a dog. Not a good quality in any sort of bitch at all, apparently. Poor Cricket, whatever the pup’s gender, was too much like too damn many human females, who will, if given half a chance, do as they damn well please, too, right down to aborting their fetuses. Women: can’t live with ‘em, can’t shoot ‘em.

But puppies don’t have similar legal protections. So Governor Noem took Cricket out to a little gravel pit on her back 40 and shot him (or her) to death without so much as blinking an eye or a howdy do. No one fucks with chicks like Kristi if they or it knows what’s good for ‘em. She’s a badassed mother, and she knows to head to Texas when she needs to get her teeth fixed purty enough to nail you with her killer smile.


And:

by Jaime O’Neill | April 30, 2024 - 6:22am | permalink


Excerpt:

Which brings us to this bitch below, another heartless Republican who can be utterly callous even when it came to killing her own little doggy, Cricket, a 14-month-old pup the Governor of South Dakota said she "hated." I repeat, "hated." Her word, not mine.

So, what was a mother to do? Cricket just had to die. Who but lily-livered socialists, Dems, fags, or weak feminist sisters would think otherwise? They won't man up, but she sure as hell will. Trump has made it clear how much he hates dogs, and he's her guy. Need a doggie duster? Who ya gonna call?

She said in her political bio (coming soon to a book store near you, should there be one) that she did it because the dog wouldn't behave and couldn't be trained. So, as is often the case with fascists, and as Trump has said so often about so many things, she had no choice but to take it out back and shoot it. Nothing else to be done. She couldn't think to find someone who might be a little more patient with the attempts to train the mutt. That would be inconvenient, and it might involve having to deal with people who had more compassion than it is generally reasonable to expect right wingers to tolerate.

So. bang-bang, a little doggy death whining and the problem is solved. Then you brag about it to potential voters who love them some good women who do what needs to be done and don't mind getting their hands dirty. Or bloody. Kristi wanted it known that she's nothing like those candy-ass left-wing women who only neuter their husbands and boyfriends, guys who don't have much in the way of balls, anyway. Shooting a no-account mutt would surely score points with "the base." Their kinda gal, just as Joni Ernst was when she boasted of castrating hogs to win the votes of Iowans.


Monday, April 29, 2024

A Short Verbal-Logic Analytical Brain Teaser

 Read the short passage below then answer the questions on it which follow, by selecting the most logical choice:


The work week in a small business is a five-day work week running from Monday through Friday. In each workweek, activities L, M, N, O and P must all be done, but the work is subject to the following restrictions:

L must be done earlier in the week than O but not earlier than P

M must be done earlier in the week than N and not earlier than O.

No more than one of the activities can be done on any one day


1. Which of the following is an acceptable schedule of activities with the activities listed from left to right in the order from Monday through Friday:

(A) L, M, N, O, P,

(B)M,N, O, M, N

(C) O, N. L, P, M

(D) P, O, L, M. L

(E) P, O, L, M , N

2. Which of the following pairs of activities could be done on Monday and Tuesday, respectively, of some week:

(A) L and O

(B) M and L

(C) M and P

(D) N and O

(E) O and M

3. If P is earlier than M on the schedule for some week, which of the following must also be true of that schedule?

(A) L is earlier than M

(B) N is earlier than M

(C) N is earlier than O

(D) O is earlier than L

(E) O is earlier than P


4. If P and N were done on Thursday and Friday, respectively, which of the following must be true?

(A) L is done on Tuesday

(B) L is done on Wednesday

(C) M is done on Monday

(D) O is done on Tuesday

(E) O is done on Wednesday


5. Which of the following could appear on the schedule for some week?

(A) L on Friday

(B) M on Thursday

(C) N on Monday

(D) O on Monday

(E) P on Tuesday


6. The one day of the week for which any one of the five activities could be scheduled while still allowing the other four activities to be scheduled is:

(A) Monday

(B) Tuesday

(C) Wednesday

(D) Thursday

(E) Friday


(Answers on Friday)

How The Loyola U. Visit Of Existentialist Philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre Propelled My Path To Atheism

                              

I never told mom that Loyola aided me on the path to atheism

Loyola University, New Orleans, provided me the opportunity of  hearing and seeing perhaps the foremost Existentialist philosopher in the world at the time:   Jean-Paul Sartre.  He had been invited by Loyola's Jesuits to debate the Christian Existentialist Gabriel Marcel at the Loyola University Fieldhouse in early 1965.  The Fieldhouse, with a capacity of 3,000, was packed. (The semester, my first at Loyola, had begun in September 1964.)

The debate was conducted in  the language  (French) of each of the opponents and translated into English  by Loyola's head of Language Studies. It lasted nearly 2 hours and it must be admitted that Sartre had the advantage from the get go. It appeared to many Marcel had not been able to coherently formulate exactly what "Christian Existentialism" meant and was also a newly minted convert to Roman Catholicism.  Sartre also had a leg up given his massive work, 'Being and Nothingness' was already available at the Loyola Bookstore, and I made sure to purchase a copy prior to the event:



By contrast, Gabriel Marcel had nothing 'on paper' to offer or to provide solid, English-translated ideas.  Hence, even before the debate I knew the gist and essential theme of Jean-Paul Sartre's arguments while Marcel's remained in "limbo", nebulous and ill-defined.

Sartre's core concept was "bad faith" and he emphasized it in the debate. The most serious transgression an authentic being or person could make, according to Sarte, was to succumb or surrender to bad faith. By "bad faith" Sartre meant going against your own interior barometer to find an authentic Self.  In other words, taking the easy or conformist path, to "go along to get along". It made life relatively easy (few conflicts) but ultimately led to despair since an artificial life was substituted for an authentic one.  In the attaining authenticity, one bore total responsibility for the direction of his life, which also incepted a degree of anguish.

As Sartre explained on p. 73:

"In anguish freedom is anguished before itself inasmuch as it is instigated and bound  by nothing.  Someone will say, freedom has just been defined as a permanent structure of the human being; if anguish manifests it then anguish ought to be a permanent state of my affectivity. But, on the contrary, it is completely exceptional.  How can we explain the rarity of the phenomenon of anguish?.....

Anguish in fact is the recognition of a possibility as my possibility;  that is, it is constituted when consciousness sees itself cut from its essence by nothingness or separated from the future by its very freedom.  This means that a nihilating nothing removes me from all excuse and that at the same time what I project as my future excuse is always nihilated and reduced to the rank of simple possibility because the future which I am remains out of my reach."

Sartre is basically saying - as he did in the debate -  that anguish was spawned from the recognition of personal freedom by the individual consciousness. That freedom entails one or more choices of possible paths, possible futures.  This is given one choice forecloses all others or in his words is "nihilated".  This in response to Gabriel Marcel's claim there was a deeply personal meaning of life bound to our engagement with it and one choice made - provided it's personal - need not extinguish others. If one wished to be a priest he could, but he could also be a scientist simultaneously.  

But Sartre viewed such a double choice with skepticism, given science and religion were clearly at odds (See e.g. the links at bottom). If then a man was a responsible scientist, who adhered to it natural laws and principles, he simply could not believe in the supernatural flotsam and jetsam required to be a priest. (E.g. a man walking on water, raising the dead from graves, a virgin who gives birth etc. etc.)  To Sartre this exemplified bad faith and was not being true to oneself. 

As he noted (B&N, p. 101):

 "If a man is what he is bad faith is forever impossible and candor ceases to be his ideal and becomes instead his being.  But is man what he is?"

In the last question Sartre suggested that with consciousness of being it may not be so easy to be what one is.  One would have to be conscious of all the pitfalls, for example, if one were to be a totally free being all the time.   As Sartre poses the quandary (ibid.):  

"In this sense it is necessary that we make ourselves what we are.  But what are we if we have the constant obligation to make ourselves what we are, if our mode of being is having the obligation to be what we are?"

It is from this secondary quandary that Sartre takes issue with the claim of sincerity, say for the hypothetical priest-scientist,   i.e., p. 105:  

 "What can be the significance of the ideal of sincerity except as a task impossible to achieve, of  which the very meaning is in contradiction with the structure of my consciousness.  To be sincere we said is to be what one is. That supposes that I am not originally what I am."

 This then leads to Sartre's harsh conclusion (p. 109): 

 "Thus the essential structure of sincerity does not differ from that of bad faith since the sincere man constitutes himself as what he is in order not to be it.   This explains the truth recognized by all that one can fall into bad faith through being sincere.... Total, constant sincerity as a constant effort to adhere to oneself is by nature a constant effort to disassociate oneself from oneself.  A person frees himself from himself by the very act with which he makes himself an object for himself."

For Sartre (p. 112):

 "The true problem of bad faith stems evidently from the fact that bad faith is faith.  It cannot be either a cynical lie or a certainty if certainty is the intuitive possession of the object.  But if we take belief as meaning adherence of being to its object when the object is not given or is given indistinctly, the  bad faith is belief, and the essential problem of bad faith is a problem of belief."

In his April, 1965 PLAYBOY interview (p. 72), Sartre is direct about this matter of belief (e.g. in God) and freedom: 

"If I have this theory of freedom it's precisely because I do not believe in God." 

 In this response, again, he is reinforcing his earlier position that bad faith is belief, in God, demons, witches, whatever.  Elements and aspect that do not conform to reality. So he makes clear that - based on his existentialist position-  any existentialist atheist cannot allow belief in an unproven claim or existent. Hence, a priest cannot be a scientist and vice versa. It is as much an oxymoron as claiming there can be a square circle. We see in the Playboy interview:

                                                                           


And here Sartre's concept of radical freedom is revealed, e.g.:        


That such freedom is "not a cheerful thing" would be self-evident to anyone who has made a clean and clear break from his or her  earlier formed background, say like a former Roman Catholic becoming an atheist.  

 I guess I made that hard choice, after performing a test (in junior year of HS) for "transubstantiation" on a communion wafer to see if it was really the "body of Christ".  Alas, a starch test performed in the Pace chemistry lab disclosed the consecrated wafer to be starch, aka carbohydrate, as I suspected. No trace of protein. No corporeal substance.

In effect, Sartre's debate (as well as his monograph) confirmed for me I was already on the path of authenticity (for me) and I would be unable to go back to simply being even a nominal Roman Catholic. What Sartre's debate and book - thanks to the Loyola Jesuits did- was to flesh out the form of atheism I would adopt based on a radical freedom rooted in existentialism.  It basically confirmed and consolidated suspicions I already had, thereby propelling me further.

See Also:

Kudos To A Courageous High School Atheist And Her Award -Winning Essay

And:

And:

And:

The Vatican's Big Bang Conference: Does George Lemaitre's "Theory" Prove A Supernatural God?

And:

Battle Of Science vs. Religion Resumes In 'Physics Today': My Published Response To A Religionist 

And: