12
May 18

Can Trump be Pried out of Office before the 2020 Presidential Election?

I doubt Mueller will have provable charges against Trump unless he can show Trump was DIRECTLY involved in money laundering at his hotels. Sure, that crime went on–but prove he knew of it (yes, he did, but prove it). The collusion thing–yes it happened but hard to prove legally, in Trump’s case. He can claim he didn’t know his staff was doing it…the obstruction of Justice is real but too legally ambiguous in his case…I agree with Bill Maher that Trump will not leave office no matter how he’s pressured–he will just dig in his heels and say no.

There are too many people making out like bandits, looting the country under his administration, banking concerns, and so on, and those people push the buttons on Congressmen. So he’ll never be impeached through Congress. However–if Dems take control of congress after November…then maybe….

I believe it’s likely he can only be removed through voting him out in 2020. And the problem with that, at least now, is more people are giving him their approval because they got a small break on their taxes after the tax reform (I know, it’s only temporary). And Trump got lucky on North Korea…so far. The economy is strong in some ways–especially if you’re a person with money to invest. …so Dems will have to work hard to unseat Trump in 2020. You’d think it would be a no brainer, but too many Americans JUST DO NOT CARE that he’s paying off porn stars, that he’s treated women like dirt, that there is corruption swirling around his administration. They only care that they got their small tax break.

I believe that Trump is a criminal who has engaged in money laundering and who is using his office to promote his private business interests; is a serial harasser of women, may have committed rape…Has likely committed treason…Deserves to be in jail…is doing vast damage to the USA and the world through his vindictive deregulation and his idiotic posturing and his “decisions” on Iran and the Paris Climate Accords… But I think it’ll be hard to pry him from office before 2020.


05
May 18

Capitalism, Communism, Democracy: Words Losing Their Meanings

For some people regulations on banking, on business, are “a stage of Communism”. They have a fuzzy idea, of course, as to what Communism is, and they have an equally fuzzy idea as to what regulations are. They seem to believe that regulations disallow capitalism from being capitalism, prevent a market from being a market. Next time I encounter someone with the view that regulations mean that we’re not longer in a capitalistic market place, I’ll resort to the overused but often handy sports metaphor: “Do you like baseball or football or basketball?” They do. “Do you regard them as healthy competition, as really as tough struggling for a win?” Yes. “So how would your favorite sport work out without any rules? If you removed the rules, would baseball be as much fun? Or would it be a chaotic muddle, possibly including violence?” Probably it would be a mess. “Capitalism with regulation is like sports with rules. It makes the game possible. Many rules are about fairness, so it arranges a fair playing field. Competition, marketing, striving to win, are all still part of a regulated capitalism.”

A good many people extolling the new left, the youth-left, and even some older people who should know the definitions of things better, suppose that “capitalism” must always mean an unfair crushing of all underdogs; must mean a flawed system in which the poor always lose. Then you say to some of these very people, (for example),”But you  own a coffee house. You’ve innovated a brand of coffee you sell. Isn’t that capitalism?” “No,” they say, “I’m fair to employees and to consumers. I don’t pollute. I don’t discriminate racially.” “That doesn’t keep it from being capitalism. You’re using capital to invest, to make a profit. Only, you’re doing it with a conscience. That’s the best capitalism.  Not only is it capitalism–it’s the ideal capitalism.” Again and again I encounter people who sell things–their own books for example–saying that “capitalism” is bad. And they are not selling editions of Das Kapital. They do not know what capitalism actually is–it’s just making a living investing time, labor and resources, to over-simplify. It can be done responsibly or irresponsibly. Good capitalism is carried out responsibly.  Talk to them, you find out  that many people really, truly, don’t know that.

There is a new phenomenon, shown by recent polls: young people who (seemingly) do not think “Democracy” is a good idea. It turns out they have mixed up the idea of democracy with “government as it is now” and “elections at their worst”, with big money taking over elections and government. That takeover–something we’re struggling to stop now–is partly a consequence of predatory individuals mis-using democracy. But this particular group of young people think that Democracy is only that. It’s synonymous in their minds with bought elections and bad government. They are unaware that it means: “government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.” (Random House Dictionary.) So when they say “not a good thing” in polls, they are not saying what we think they’re saying. They are not actually saying “Dictatorship is better”. They’re not being asked to address the question of what would be better than the damaged Democracy we’re burdened with in the era of big-money campaign financing.

In parallel, the alt-right and their libertarian friends who say “regulation is Communism” are unaware that Communism is: “a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.” They think the word applies to regulations in general.

The very meanings of these powerful words are being lost. Clearly the answer to this muddling of terminology is education. Civics is scarcely in evidence in schools now. That needs to be changed. And a campaign to explain these concepts to those who don’t grasp them should be undertaken.

 


03
May 18

Internet News Even From Reputable Sources: SLOPPY

Internet news, as opposed to newspaper news, is very sloppily put together. It’s hasty, and as a consequence has far more typographical errors and badly thought out headlines. This is the entire headline of an abc news article online: “DNA TEST LINKS WOMAN TO BIOLOGICAL FATHER AND 7 HALF SIBLINGS” – the actual story IS news, as it’s about finding a father and siblings she didn’t knew she had, but the headline…? It’s like– “You’re related to your dad and siblings! News at eleven!” All they had to do is take the time to write the headline so the point of the story is part of it. But no. Don’t have time. The jittery, feeble internet attention spans must have eighty thousand stories a second thrown at them.


27
Apr 18

Nattering New-Age Nitwits

It annoys me no end when New Age nitwits coo glowingly of the spiritual deeps of pre-Columbian civilizations. The Maya, the Aztec, the Inca, had impressive civilizations, impressive cultures, with fine art, significant engineering skills–all that is true. But: “While incidents of human sacrifice among the Aztec, Maya and Inca have been recorded…the discovery of a large-scale child sacrifice event in the little-known pre-Columbian Chimu civilization is unprecedented in the Americas — if not in the entire world,” National Geographic said.

The Carthaginians (in what we now call Tunisia) also had an impressive civilization–and they tossed babies into furnaces. (See link in comments.) ANY people who let magical thinking and a penchant for ritualistic cruelty lead them into human sacrifice was as debased as the gabbling Christian priests who tortured and mass-murdered “heretics” for the Inquisition and the so-called Church. THEY ALL SUCK EQUALLY because they’re all human beings and human beings are prone to sleepwalking through their entire lifespans, while having complex waking dreams that they mistake for waking life. They can do fine things and debased, monstrous things in the same day without knowing the difference. Humanity cheerfully dives headlong into the basest most toxic ideas, so long as it’s in some way comforting; so long as it aids in keeping them in their cozy state of waking sleep…

Another popular form of New Age Nitwit nattering is found in that weird mix of scripted fixation and pseudo-documentary “What the Bleep do we Know?” which is actually a recruiting video for the Ramtha (JZ Knight) cult. It’s suffused with pseudo-science, cherrypicked quotes mixed with utterly made up bullshit, and other rubbish. Yet this fraud was and is a successful film. It’s been debunked many times but no one seems to care.

It’s odd–they don’t seem to get the irony in the title of their film.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biggest-child-sacrifice-evidence-archaeologists-national-geographic-peru-chimu/


25
Apr 18

IN DARKNESS WAITING: EVIL IS DEHUMANIZATION

[My foreword to my novel IN DARKNESS WAITING, for its new edition, seems relevant to our times. And to humanity's perennial dilemma, its persistent question: What is the Nature of Evil?]

Foreword to IN DARKNESS WAITING: The “Director’s Cut”

This edition of In Darkness Waiting has been re-edited. I updated it a little, cut some youthful excess, tinkered with a few sentences and trimmed some slow bits. But it’s essentially the same book, and it definitely has the same theme. It’s a hard-charging horror story—I suspect it would be difficult to find a horror novel with a scene more extreme than the climax of this book—but its subtext is what is most important to me.

Paradoxically, some books seem more relevant as time goes on. Or perhaps their relevance is simply brought into prominence by resonant times. In Darkness Waiting seems to me to be one of those books. Before there was any thought of reprinting IDW, I found myself referring to it, more than once, while writing some recent online opinion pieces. I was writing about the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, as well as the abuse of women and “unbelievers” by Fundamentalist Muslims. How can people stone a woman to death because someone raped her? They do. How can American soldiers gleefully torment and beat and humiliate their prisoners, most of whom had nothing to do with terrorism? They did. When an atrocity comes about, it starts inside the perpetrators. Something happens, in them—a process whereby they dehumanize their victims. Well before the act, the atrocity has begun psychologically—and neurologically.

People are not innately monstrous. Most people can be quite compassionate, sympathetic, in the right circumstances. Yet somehow they can also switch that compassion off—some unknown trigger comes along, and it’s switched off, within them, like switching off a light. As I mention in IDW, Nazis guarding concentration camps tossed bread to hungry, snow-bound birds, feeling genuinely sorry for them, while a few feet away children starved to death, watching enviously as the birds eat crumbs. How can they calmly accept taking part in starving those children, and then feed the birds? Many of these monsters had wives and children they loved. What is the mechanism of the repression of normal human empathy?

There are many examples of dehumanization from American history. In the book The Plutonium Files by Pulitzer Prize winner Eileen Welsome, we learn that in the 1940s thousands of powerless Americans–blacks, institutionalized children, the poor, prisoners, soldiers— were deliberately exposed to plutonium, often in injections, as part of experiments essentially designed to find ways to protect the experimenters from deadly radiation. The researchers worked for the government, on military grants (all done in secret), to try to find ways to protect the developers of nuclear weapons from radiation. So they injected radioactive particles into people; they gave hundreds of children radioactive iron particles, spoonfed to them in oat meal, and then, quite dispassionately, they monitored the health of experimental subjects–eventually, their deterioration–in this effort to protect their own kind. They dehumanized their subjects for the sake of their own survival; to find ways to protect them, the researchers, and people like them, from radiation, at the expense of powerless Americans–who were never told what was happening to them. President Clinton appointed a committee to look into these allegations, and the committee reported its shocking conclusions on the very day that the OJ Simpson trial concluded–perhaps so that the story would be buried in the press, as in fact it was.

In my online piece I wrote: I again call for scientific research into the psychological and neurological mechanism of dehumanization. We need to realize that it’s integral to human behavior–and only through understanding it can we find ways to overcome it.

It is perhaps significant that the original title of this novel was Insect Inside. If we are not careful to make conscious choices, we become insects, inside.

In Darkness Waiting is an entertainment. If you like horror, I think there’s a good chance you’ll find it damned entertaining. (Or should that be “entertainment for the damned”?) But it’s also about something that honestly troubles me. It’s also about real life. Yes: all-too-real life. I gave the phenomenon a name in the book. E.S.S.: Empathy Suppression Syndrome. That clinical label was a strategy to promote the notion that we need to engage in a whole new level of what Gurdjieff and the Buddhists call “self-observation.” We need to observe ourselves as a species, with new objectivity, or we’ll never understand the nature of evil.

And if we don’t understand it, we have no hope of standing against it.


06
Apr 18

Fire Isn’t Bad but Parental Addiction to Technology Hurts Children

The thing that bothers me most about “smart” phones isn’t the idiots walking down the street staring into the screens, or sitting with each other in restaurants both staring into their screens or texting…those things are repellent but what’s far worse is seeing smartphone parents in a park with their kids, and the small children want to show the parent how they can ride the merry go round, swing on the swing, throw a ball, and the parent ignores them and stares into their phone or their ipad.

The kid goes up to them, tugs on their sleeve. Parent ignores them, sends a text. The kid says things to get parent’s attention. Parent scrolls through social media on phone, mutters to the kid, scrolls some more, kid wanders off…

Or the kid tries to talk to them and the parent gives the kid a cell phone or the equivalent screen toy to look into…and now the parent and the kid are staring at phones next to each other.

Without real communication, damaging ordinary bonding and socialization, how does the kid turn out. “I don’t know what’s wrong with that kid…”

And if I ridicule overuse of smart phones and electronic media, no it doesn’t mean I’m being all “fire bad!” and against technology. That’s like saying if a man objects to a drunk driver getting behind the wheel in a car, the man must despise cars. I don’t hate cars because I despise people who drink heavily and drive. I’m against the mis-use of technology–and designing it to make misuse likely– not the technology itself.


28
Mar 18

DISCOURAGED WITH DEMOCRATS? IT’S TIME TO CRASH THE PARTY!

There are people who disdain voting–some use one excuse for taking responsibility, some use another. Some say it’s because they’re fed up with “the two party system”–when we don’t have one. There are various parties, the Green Party with the dreaded Jill Stein, the Libertarians with the dreaded libertarians, the Socialist Party, and so on. They have failed to capture enough support to take over from the top two, is all. . .Then there are people who disdain voting because “it changes nothing”. This is sheer ignorance. If Gore had been (proven) elected, in 2000 there would have been no Iraq war. Obama’s policies were, overall, very different from Bush’s and Trump’s. He accomplished some good things. I will not engage in the tiresome listing of contrasting policies, despite some overlap, between Democrats and Republicans–you can research it. The difference is dramatic. But is the Democratic Party worth supporting?

Some people feel that there’s no one to vote for, that Democrats once meant something but they’re now ineffective, timid, and some of them are treacherous right-leaning “blue dogs”. 16 Dem senators recently voted, it’s true, to weaken Dodd-Frank. But they’re not the mainstream of the party. Anyway, I agree that the Democratic party, though a thousand times better than the Republican party, is troubled, indecisive, divided, and sometimes too much in the bag for big money. And voting for the Greens would simply give the Republicans more seats by default. So what’s the alternative?

There are those who are working to simply take over the Democratic party, to unify it around policies that are clear-cut in the defense of the working poor and the middle class, in the defense of the environment, in a desire to scale down the military to a sane (still effective) size, in their plan for firm banking regulation and an increase in taxes on the 1% and corporations…There is, for example, Young Democrats of America…Check out YDA.org

The GOP was taken over by radical-right activists. Progressive activists can take over the Democratic party–and they’re more in line with what America wants.

Don’t dump the Democratic Party. Take it over.


23
Mar 18

A Response from Senator Murray on Scott Pruitt & the Trump EPA

From Senator Patty Murray in response to a note I sent her asking that Dems do more about Pruitt and Trump’s version of the EPA. I assume this is a form letter about Pruitt but it does address most of what I raised with her.

Dear Mr. Shirley:
Thank you for writing to me regarding oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I appreciate hearing from you. Since his confirmation, Administrator Scott Pruitt has been singularly focused on undermining the core mission of the EPA. The Administration has taken steps to roll back the Clean Power Plan and the Clean Water Rule, which effectively denies the consensus that climate change is a real and present danger and in turn makes communities in Washington state and across the country more vulnerable to environmental harm than ever before. While deeply disappointed, I am ultimately not surprised that this Administration is doing exactly what we feared—taking one action after another to diminish critical environmental protections and undercut progress, jeopardizing our most valuable natural resources for future generations.

To make matters worse, the Administration has installed reckless and unqualified individuals to lead key EPA offices charged with keeping our air and water clean and safe. Despite the President’s promise to “drain the swamp,” Administration officials have slowed the enforcement of toxic chemical regulations and the oversight of hazardous materials usage in favor of prioritizing the demands of coal and chemical company executives. Further, I remain troubled by allegations of waste and misuse of taxpayer funds within EPA, including reports of Administrator Pruitt racking up high-cost travel expenses, directing the installation of an unprecedented customized communication booth for personal use, and employing a partisan opposition research organization to monitor press activity.

Rest assured that I will keep working with my colleagues to provide the congressional oversight of the EPA that is so critical, including standing firmly against irresponsible and shortsighted cuts to the agency’s budget. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to not be distracted by the tweets and sideshows and to pushback against the Trump Administration’s all-out assault against our environment. I am committed to continuing our efforts to restore Puget Sound, protecting bedrock environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, and rejecting unqualified nominees for critical posts at the EPA and across the government.


19
Mar 18

“SELF-DRIVING CAR KILLS PEDESTRIAN”

“A self-driving Uber SUV struck and killed 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg as she walked her bicycle across a street in Tempe, Arizona, Sunday night, according to the Tempe police.”–CNN

I favor self-driving cars (as an option) if they get the technology right but they haven’t done that. They’re rushing this tech on us before it’s ready. They’re testing them on public roads, rather than at special sealed off tracks (which can be rigged to simulate pedestrians and traffic surprises). So we’re the guinea pigs here….and someone has died. For one thing, they “don’t do well”, it appears, in bad weather. Well what the hell. If they suck in bad weather they’re not ready for prime time. Bad weather is routine. Also the article tells us: “For self-driving cars, dealing with pedestrians and bicyclists is a challenging task.” And that’s how this young lady was killed. They can’t deal with pedestrians?! Then who said they could put it on the road. What, are we supposed to run screaming out of the cross-walk if a self driving car is spotted? What the HELL.

This new industry should be STOPPED until they are able to make the cars safer than human drivers. They can if they invest the time and money. But they’d rather risk our lives.


08
Mar 18

Banks TRULY SUCK Even Worse Than I Thought…

Went to bank to see about putting half my checking account in a savings account.Turns out that NOW savings accounts commonly only offer LESS THAN ONE PER CENT (significantly less!) in returns. Money markets, not much better. One percent, often. Two if you’re lucky. The young banker told me it really started with the housing / banking crash ten years ago. Used to be 5 to 7 per cent, and I don’t mean a generation ago.

NOW…check this out (so to speak)…the nation has a crisis of people in debt. Not enough people are saving money. They get into debt and save nothing. Screws them up, bad for consumers all round. So the banks are being really irresponsible not offering an incentive to save money. So that means people are going to get deeper in debt…to whom? Usually, to banks. . . What, the banks don’t care about consumers, not really? You say that’s no revelation? Right. I just didn’t know it was that bad. Banks SUCK even worse than I thought and that’s something.