Member Profile

Total number of comments: 6 (since 2013-12-14 18:46:52)

Dan Gronlie

Showing comments 6 - 1

  • Donald "Dr. Strangelove" Trump and some of the Times We almost had a Nuclear War
    • Yeah, I was floored by Juan's statement about remakes and the film's status as 'languish(ing) in black and white.'

      Remaking Dr. Strangelove? In color, no less? Yikes - that would be ghastly. The film was deliberately made in black and white. On the other hand, imagine 'Lawrence of Arabia' (released two years earlier) had been filmed in black and white. The colors of the desert, the robes worn by Omar Sharif, Anthony Quinn, and Peter O'Toole, the... well, anyway...

      Not with Juan at all on this one...

  • On the Fourth of July: None of us has Inalienable Rights if American Muslims don't
    • No, he's not just talk. I left a planned long weekend visit with my family early on Sunday afternoon while just barely containing my dismay and rage at my father's recital of bigoted statements drawn directly from the Trump playbook. Don't know whether I'm welcome back in the future or if I want to be. Although my father has always been a 'soft' bigot to a degree, now that Donald Trump has opened the floodgates of public discourse in favor of bigotry and racism to the worst extent in decades, my father, who hasn't a single reason in the universe to speak ill against any person based on ethnic heritage or skin color, is casually spouting filth. Donald Trump is a dangerously ignorant, rotten, utterly selfish con man whose current presence on one of the largest bully pulpits in the world has the potential to pollute American 'civil' discourse for decades, or worse.

      As to the 'doers,' the constant vitriol flowing from the Trump campaign provides them perfect cover. My father STILL buys the BS that Iraq was part of 'they' (apparently anyone with an Arabic-sounding name) who were behind the 9/11 attacks. Trump's absurd, convoluted and self-contradictory dialogue is generating a thick cloud of smoke which repels truth and reason, and welcomes dissembling and the blaming of everything that might be not awesome about the United States on groups of people identifiable solely by ethnic background as poorly indicated via skin pigmentation or (the current target of opportunity - in so many more ways than one) names that sound sort of Arabic... It's the crowning achievement of organized, motivated ignorance.
      If I ever meet the prick, I will simply call him out as a man to defend what he has said against me, an unarmed man, but with honor. President or not. That's what he merits for pushing utter filth into my family. And - Juan or other moderator - I'm not advocating anything other than appropriately demanding that a man stand behind hateful rhetoric in a manner that it is entirely consistent with American principles of responsibility for one's own conduct. Of course he would ditch such a challenge, and if he didn't, he'd live through it, but he'd get a taste of the meaning of responsibility. His rhetoric may have cracked my extended family in half for an indefinite period of time, and that finally made the devolvement of the state of the 2016 national elections into the farce it has become very, very personal.

  • Will Brexit Help the Palestinian Cause in the EU?
    • Um... If Juan's 'views' don't necessarily reflect Informed Comment's editorial policy, what does?

      Sorry, just a bit confused about that one... I have been visiting Informed Comment for years, almost exclusively because of the value of his views...

  • Photo of the Day: Was St. Nicholas "White"?
    • I'm 43 and grew up in North Dakota, about as 'white' a state as exists in the US. I have reached that point at which I no longer can accept the legitimacy of such categorization of Americans as white, black, African-American, Asian-American, etc. Unless one is an American citizen with additional national citizenships, it makes no sense whatsoever to me to define individuals as '-American.' Additionally, all members of homo sapiens are genetically compatible with each other for purposes of procreation, so it is utterly illogical to define 'races' of human beings, as it merely describes very, very slight genetic differences which have developed as a result of periods in which people procreated in a somewhat isolated fashion in a particular area for a significant period of time. Most of these traits, after a few generations of procreation among human beings of different ancestral geographic origins, become visually undetectable, or blended into a different, interesting genetic makeup that can not be said to be 'racial' in the modern sense of the word. Americans live in the most ethnically diverse country in the world - why have we not reached the point where we can simply refer to 'racial' differences, which after all, are only based on appearance, as what they are - 'light/dark/moderate' skin tone, etc. When I mention 'dark skin tone' to family or friends, most look at me and say 'black, right?' I respond - 'no, I've never seen a black person in my life - I've seen a few white people, they're called albinos and it's rather unfortunate condition, but I've never seen a black person. I've seen people with all sorts of brown-ish hues of skin, and people with pink-ish hues of skin, and, of course, orange-ish tan, kind of khaki-ish tan, and a lot of other colors. I describe human beings with various skin tones as well as hair colors and attributes as People. I don't know any other way to think.' Some call me naive, some just smirk, and some pause a moment or two and give the matter some thought.

  • Top Ten Problems in South Carolina Lindsey Graham should worry more about than Benghazi
    • I think that the points raised by Juan should answer your question. The fact of the matter is that some parts of our country are populated inordinately by people with lower education levels, on average, than others, and have a greater rate of general violence than most of the country. South Carolina is one such place.

      What sort of person do such regions send to office, then?

  • Karl Rove's Regret (Jamiol Cartoon)
    • Unfortunately, although the cartoon is gratifying, it's not accurate at all. All that money serves to keep the most visible of our potentially progressive leaders away from the progressive stances that may be necessary to maintain a healthy republic. The money and the ads they buy promises progressives that, should they push just a little bit too far away from 'the middle,' they will be vigorously attacked as radicals. And it will cost them, dearly. It's astounding that a vulture capitalist, who would not reveal his tax returns, and who declared, in a frank moment, utter disdain for about half of the American people, essentially those who did not start out in life with considerable trust funds backing up their get-richer-at-any-cost business endeavors, came very close to becoming the President of the United States. Now, as a result, 'the new normal' in political dialogue includes massively overfunding the already bloated military establishment, ostracizing the poor to middle class as self-designated 'victims' ungratefully living off of the good graces of the rich, and the slow strangling of the civilian federal government through under-taxation. Mr. Rove knows fully well that he has earned his keep.

Showing comments 6 - 1