Unfortunately, dealing with Trump seems to be essentially the same thing as trying to argue logically with, say, a gambler. No matter what arguments are raised about why gambling is a problem, there is always an answer. That answer may -- and almost always is -- be untethered from logic and reality but it is, technically, an answer and so serves the purpose and is expected to end the discussion. If you do not end the discussion a tantrum ensues.
Trump, while likely not insane, has severe mental problems which, among other things, have prevented him from confronting reality. Ascribing logic to his actions so as to deal with them is fruitless. His response to O'Reilly is just "an answer." Taking it seriously and dissecting it is, unfortunately, itself a descent into insanity. It makes as much sense as arguing quantum field theory with the resident perma-drunk in the bar.
So what are we to do? I have no idea. When a sitting president tweets about a federal judge in the manner he has and the response is only mild surprise it shows how far through the looking glass we have come, in only two weeks. Hitler benefitted from such rapid normalization as you, Prof. Cole, have pointed out. I watched Trump give a speech in Dec. 2015 and my blood ran cold at how Hitleresque was his oratory and sensed he would win. We may be screwed. Analogies with Hitler are not exact but neither are they overblown.
Perceptive stuff but the last paragraph reminds me -- admittedly inexactly -- of what von Papen expected of Hitler. In the current national milieu, I think, failure to conform to Godwin's Law is a travesty. Not a criticism of your article at all; rather, a note of desperation being struck.
While making some good points, I think the author misses the point about fascism. It is not an attempt to write Trump off by belittling him as a "fascist"; It is that he actually is one and his rhetoric and style have the same effect as did those of the fascists. I watched a speech by Trump in December and it was eerily scaring, not least because I found myself going along with some of it, even though what he was saying was idiocy.
I think we need more pieces on Trump, not less, because, to me he is an existential threat. Sure, we can liken him to Reagan but I think this is an order of magnitude (at least) more serious. Reagan was never much concerned about much beyond filling a role. Trump is different,
The Jehovah's Witnesses are a dangerous -- to their members -- cult. They discourage higher education; prohibit blood transfusions, which has led to the death of countless children and others (now they have rules so confusing on this issue that nobody really understands them); they have caused countless people to ruin their lives in various ways because of the expectation of an imminent Armageddon (1879, 1914, 1922, 1975 being just some of the dates predicted). They change they story as their ill-founded prophecies fail to come true yet refuse to having made a mistake.
Their fundamental doctrine is that their leaders speak directly for God. Questioning this is a cause for expulsion. Yet, after the fact, when their worthless prophecies fail they claim "human imperfection" as the excuse. Then they proceed to make new predictions or rules, claiming that they speak for God. Basically, jam yesterday, jam tomorrow; no jam today.
This fits with Prince's other idealized views as you have pointed out.
Good points -- a bit tongue in cheek, perhaps (my comment), but getting the Spanish to move away from beef production will be hard. The Spanish, generally, are quite open to new ideas but threaten their toros.....
Also, maybe if something has to be flooded, better the thieves in the capitals.
In fact the sex slaves possibly got the better deal;
Numbers 31:
Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man
Sadly, that may be the point. It's not about expense per se but about funneling money and resources upwards at any expense. The more people in poverty the more the prison system profits and the cheaper will be the labor etc. Weapons systems are an excellent way to channel money to the super rich.
Great ideas but in terms of what's actually fattening us up, it's mainly High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) -- excellent videos on UCvideo by Robert Lustig of UCSF
He makes the point -- and convincingly -- that people ***cannot*** reasonably be expected to stop eating this stuff -- about 80% of processed food contains HFCS and, in poor areas, this may be 100% of what's actually available. The notion that people should be free to eat Triple Bypass Burgers is effectively debunked by Lustig. It's basically the same argument as saying "let children start smoking at 8 and then it's up to them whether they stop as adults."
We are force fed poison from childhood and then told it's our own fault. Not too many fat 1%-ers.
Yet.
Unfortunately, dealing with Trump seems to be essentially the same thing as trying to argue logically with, say, a gambler. No matter what arguments are raised about why gambling is a problem, there is always an answer. That answer may -- and almost always is -- be untethered from logic and reality but it is, technically, an answer and so serves the purpose and is expected to end the discussion. If you do not end the discussion a tantrum ensues.
Trump, while likely not insane, has severe mental problems which, among other things, have prevented him from confronting reality. Ascribing logic to his actions so as to deal with them is fruitless. His response to O'Reilly is just "an answer." Taking it seriously and dissecting it is, unfortunately, itself a descent into insanity. It makes as much sense as arguing quantum field theory with the resident perma-drunk in the bar.
So what are we to do? I have no idea. When a sitting president tweets about a federal judge in the manner he has and the response is only mild surprise it shows how far through the looking glass we have come, in only two weeks. Hitler benefitted from such rapid normalization as you, Prof. Cole, have pointed out. I watched Trump give a speech in Dec. 2015 and my blood ran cold at how Hitleresque was his oratory and sensed he would win. We may be screwed. Analogies with Hitler are not exact but neither are they overblown.
Juan,
Perceptive stuff but the last paragraph reminds me -- admittedly inexactly -- of what von Papen expected of Hitler. In the current national milieu, I think, failure to conform to Godwin's Law is a travesty. Not a criticism of your article at all; rather, a note of desperation being struck.
While making some good points, I think the author misses the point about fascism. It is not an attempt to write Trump off by belittling him as a "fascist"; It is that he actually is one and his rhetoric and style have the same effect as did those of the fascists. I watched a speech by Trump in December and it was eerily scaring, not least because I found myself going along with some of it, even though what he was saying was idiocy.
I think we need more pieces on Trump, not less, because, to me he is an existential threat. Sure, we can liken him to Reagan but I think this is an order of magnitude (at least) more serious. Reagan was never much concerned about much beyond filling a role. Trump is different,
The Jehovah's Witnesses are a dangerous -- to their members -- cult. They discourage higher education; prohibit blood transfusions, which has led to the death of countless children and others (now they have rules so confusing on this issue that nobody really understands them); they have caused countless people to ruin their lives in various ways because of the expectation of an imminent Armageddon (1879, 1914, 1922, 1975 being just some of the dates predicted). They change they story as their ill-founded prophecies fail to come true yet refuse to having made a mistake.
Their fundamental doctrine is that their leaders speak directly for God. Questioning this is a cause for expulsion. Yet, after the fact, when their worthless prophecies fail they claim "human imperfection" as the excuse. Then they proceed to make new predictions or rules, claiming that they speak for God. Basically, jam yesterday, jam tomorrow; no jam today.
This fits with Prince's other idealized views as you have pointed out.
In the vernacular -- "wot Mike said."
Good points -- a bit tongue in cheek, perhaps (my comment), but getting the Spanish to move away from beef production will be hard. The Spanish, generally, are quite open to new ideas but threaten their toros.....
Also, maybe if something has to be flooded, better the thieves in the capitals.
In fact the sex slaves possibly got the better deal;
Numbers 31:
Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man
Sadly, that may be the point. It's not about expense per se but about funneling money and resources upwards at any expense. The more people in poverty the more the prison system profits and the cheaper will be the labor etc. Weapons systems are an excellent way to channel money to the super rich.
Juan,
Great ideas but in terms of what's actually fattening us up, it's mainly High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) -- excellent videos on UCvideo by Robert Lustig of UCSF
http://www.uctv.tv/skinny-on-obesity/
(also, google, Sugar, The bitter Truth)
He makes the point -- and convincingly -- that people ***cannot*** reasonably be expected to stop eating this stuff -- about 80% of processed food contains HFCS and, in poor areas, this may be 100% of what's actually available. The notion that people should be free to eat Triple Bypass Burgers is effectively debunked by Lustig. It's basically the same argument as saying "let children start smoking at 8 and then it's up to them whether they stop as adults."
We are force fed poison from childhood and then told it's our own fault. Not too many fat 1%-ers.