Have we sunk this low?

Although this is not the mosque in the article, "As Houston Islamic Center burns, firefighter posts "Let it burn - Block the fire hydrant" , it illustrates what is on much of conservative America's mind - blind hatred to others who are not like them.  It's not just Islam - Sikhs are being caught up in the hatred of the ignorant, as noted in this article.  Even my father lumps Sikhs in with Muslims, calling them all "Towel Heads", without the slightest understanding that Sikhs are often at odds with Muslims because of their religion and practice of it.

This is the kind of event that disgusts me.  There is nothing wrong with fearing the unknown. I fear the potential of having an unassimilated ethnic group demanding rights they have in other countries that no ethnic group should have in ours. But giving into that fear is something else.  The quickest way to radicalize the Muslims in the United States is to treat them as third class citizens.

There are legitimate fears - Americans do not want to see the United States become like Europe.  We successfully absorbed millions of people from around the world in simpler times - and virtually every major group has been successfully brought into the mainstream. People coming here wanted to become Americans and leave the old world behind.  Current European immigrants want to bring the old country (and culture) with them - and this poses a dilemma for today's Americans:  Will newcomers (in any large number) from truly foreign cultures assimilate successfully?

I'm concerned with the growth of Islam in the United States.  It's because I see Saudi Arabia funding many of the prison chaplains, spreading the most conservative practice of Islam in the world.  I'm afraid that their barbaric culture (vs. the barbaric culture we're already familiar with) will cause us problems if its members grow too large in our society.  

- - - - - -

However, I also fear radical Christianity.  We've identified the San Bernardino shootings as terrorist activity. But what about the bombing of Abortion Clinics, as well as the assassination of doctors who have practiced there.  Many of the same people who say abortion is wrong often try to impose their moral values on the rest of us by also getting in the way of women having a full range of safe and legal contraception options.  (The "Hobby Lobby" case comes to mind here.)  So I am concerned for the women who do not have convenient access to safe and legal medical procedures to keep a baby healthy while it's in the womb, as well as access to safe and legal medical procedures for those women (for whatever reasons) need to abort the fetuses inside them.

Once a woman's right to control her own body is taken away by social conservatives, what is next?  We've already seen legislators pander to the religious right by saying that church attendance should be made mandatory.  How would Atheists fare?  Then, I'd bet that religious purity zealots would go after "social undesirables" such as Homosexuals, Bisexuals, and Transgender people.  And then, who would be next to suffer in the potential religious purges?

- - - - - -

If you don't think anything like this could happen here, you haven't been paying attention to history.  Politicians will lie to the people.  But sometimes, they get caught up in their lies, and have to act in disgusting ways.  For example, we've seen Japanese Americans herded up into prison camps -  only because of their ancestry.  Was this done to people of either German or Italian ancestry?  No.  But we feared the Japanese, and "needed" to control the "Japanese" in our midst in the most brutal and inhumane way possible.  (And Donald Trump) is using this as a model of what we should do to Muslims living in America.

After seeing pictures of Jews wearing Yellow Stars in Germany, it sickens me to see this crap being proposed here.  And I feel very sorry that the most "conservative" of Christians are making the same mistake Germany made in the 1930's. Instead, I'd like to see America address the problems brought up in this video clip from the HBO series, The Newsroom.  Only then, can America be great again (no help from Trump.)

Reflections - Post San Bernardino

As much as I disagree with the NRA, I'll agree with them in regards to mass killings - it's not a gun problem, but a people problem. Gun free zones are meaningless in the same way that Drug free zones are meaningless. They are only a public statement that guns (or drugs) are not welcome, and not a reflection of reality - because those unwelcome items are already there.

Even if we were to take the NRA's stance that we have a mental health problem (in the case of the Connecticut school massacre in Sandy Hook), how do we change the mental health and legal systems (as well as provide adequate funding) to deal with such issues? If we focus on terrorism, how many freedoms do we want to sacrifice in the name of security? Can we trust our governments, with the history of corruption we have in this country (from both parties)?

We need intelligent regulation that crosses state lines, and has few (if any) loopholes. Population density and homogeneity is important. In areas of low population density, where people tend to be from a single ethnic group, we find a very low level of gun crime. In areas of high population density and a heterogeneous population base (such as in most urban areas), we find a high level of gun crime.

So, what do we do?

In the case of potential non-terrorist gun crime, we can work on providing better mental health treatment to people at a low cost. We can look for people who are alienated from society in general, and find ways to better integrate them into society - jobs, friends, social networks, etc. - so that they feel they have something to lose from going on violent rampages.

In the case of potential terrorist gun crime, we can allow the government to use a limited amount of spying tools (with appropriate warrants and vetted public monitoring to help protect us from becoming a police state) that analyze content and traffic on the internet (and associated social networks) to detect these terrorists (such as could have been done for the San Bernardino killings) and stop them.

Federal regulation based on population density and population heterogeneity must be enacted to supersede that existing on state levels, and must reflect the reality of metropolitan areas that cross state lines, as well as trafficking materials from areas with lenient regulation to those areas with restrictive regulation.   

Will this end all gun crime?

Certainly not!  America is a nation in love with its guns, and we have a constitution that protects our gun rights, in part, to insure that we can overthrow a tyrannical government. But, if we can cut this crime by a significant amount, we can start focusing on other problems that are just as important - such as seeing that ALL Americans who want a job can get a job (or have one provided to them that supplies them with a reasonable income).  I am tired of hearing Americans shout past each other, not listening to the valid points their opposition brings up. We have it in ourselves to make this nation a greater nation than it already is - Let's find a way to make it so.....  

Another Candidate who is Unfit to Serve

The Donald.  Always using bluster to manipulate people.  And sadly, he seems to be succeeding.  

I've always looked at Trump as a schlocky real estate promoter who has turned his last name into a brand name.  The problem with the brand is that it depends on people to believe it has value, instead of carefully looking at the merchandise itself. And that's where the big fraud starts to surface.

My father has subscribed to the cult of Trump.  My dad is a WW2 veteran, and he has seen generations of American politicians betray the country. These politicians say one thing, then do another - and the people never hold them accountable, as they blindly trusted the words of the ruling elite.  My dad has always been a cynic.  When asked why he votes out the incumbent, he responds that it is time to let a new crook get his piece of the action.  So when Trump says, "Let's make America Great Again!", my dad buys that line hook, line and sinker - as he believes that this country needs to be fixed, and he has given up on the ruling elite either being willing or able to do this.

Let's look at Trump with a critical eye.  Umberto Eco has noted 14 points of Fascism.  Citing an analysis on the Blue Virginia website it appears that Trump (and other GOP candidates) meet Eco's definition of a Fascist.

1. "The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition...As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message." (Right, and according to Trump, all he needs to do is snap his fingers and bring us all back to that mythological time prior to when America stopped being "great.")
2. "Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism." (Science denial is rampant in the 2016 Republican presidential field, certainly with Trump.)
3. "Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake." (Listen to Trump's speeches, they're extremely short on specifics or actual plans, extremely long on taking action -- even if the specified action would be extremely harmful, dangerous, crazy, whatever.)
4. "No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism... For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason." (If you don't agree with Trump, you're in idiot, probably a Communist, etc.)
5. "Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus UrFascism is racist by definition." (Xenophobia - immigrant bashing, Muslim bashing, etc. - is rampant in the rhetoric of Trump and other 2016 Republican presidential contenders.)
6. "Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups." (No question that a lot of people are frustrated right now, for economic and other reasons. The problem is that they're often pointing their fingers at the wrong causes for their distress, and demagogues like Trump are stoking that.)
7. "...at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia."  (Again, that's Trump to a "T," including his hyper-militarism, the answer to everything being to kill it, deport it, bomb the crap out of it, etc.)
8. "The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies." (In this case, I wouldn't say "wealth" as much as "force," such as in the case of ISIS.)
9. "For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle." (Not sure if this one fits exactly, but I haven't thought it through fully. Your thoughts?)
10. "Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people of the world, the members of the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party." (Yep, that's Trump, American Exceptionalism and breast-thumping ultra-nationalism to the nth degree. Because WE ARE THE GREATEST...well, that is, when he makes us "great again!" Heh.)
11. "The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death." (Not sure Trump's "impatient to die," but he certainly seems eager to send other people to fight and die.)
12. " Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the UrFascist hero tends to play with weapons – doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise." (Definitely note the strong streaks of homophobia and misogyny in the right-wing "base." Also note their extreme discomfort with other sexual identities, such as transgenderism, as well as with men not being tough or macho enough (e.g., Trump's criticisms of "JEB" Bush as "low energy."). And of course, they loooove their guns, the bigger and badder the better!)
13. "For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter." (Yep, that's Trump.)
14. " Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in 1984, as the official language of Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning. " (Listen to Trump speak; he sounds like he has about a 3rd-grade vocabulary. Bunch of utter garbage, no complex or critical reasoning in evidence, definite "Newspeak" tendencies.)

Trump wants to control his message, and even the true conservatives in his party are getting fed up with his antics.  Recently, he wanted to talk over Joe Scarborough on "Morning Joe", and the host cut to a commercial instead of letting Trump run Joe's show. It's about damned time that people start treating Trump for the troublemaker that he is, and chase him out of the GOP.

With all that being said, I want to play with fire, and I hope that Trump is the GOP candidate. Why, you might ask? GOP strategists have noted that a Trump nomination might cause many GOP loyalists to stay home on Election Day and allow for a Democrat to be elected, possibly enabling the Democrats to regain control of the Senate.  Am I comfortable with the risk that this Fascist might actually win and gain power?  Absolutely not.  But if both the GOP and America as a whole can't see Trump for the danger he is to our society, than America deserves the trouble it will get if Trump is elected.

Iran and the remaining folk in the Clown Car.

Most of the people in the GOP "Clown Car" are saying that the deal with Iran is a bad one, and that they will overturn it when in office.  Do any of them understand that pandering to the base only makes them look more idiotic for the general campaign?

- - - - - -

The deal with Iran was not only a deal with America, but a deal with Germany, France, Russia, China, and Great Britain.  Although the Israelis could not be a direct part of the deal and had to condemn the deal for existential reasons, I have no doubt that they have had to have some input into the deal due to their relationship with America.

It is very pleasant to read this statement from Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, that the Republican presidential candidates were so “laughable” that “the people of Iran look at them as a form of entertainment.”  Why, you might ask?  Well, he is wise enough to know that even if the USA were to back out of this deal, that it would still be in force with the other G5+1 members.  This deal needs no treaty with the USA, nor does it need America's cooperation to be implemented.  It helped that the USA was on-board when the deal was crafted, as it allowed America and Iran an ability to openly work with each other - something that has not been possible since before 1980.

The Iranian President went on to say the following:

“Can a government become a signatory to an international agreement and then the subsequent government tear it to shreds? This is something that only the likes of Saddam Hussein would do. So, any government that replaces the current government must keep itself committed to the commitments given by the previous administration. Otherwise, that government, that entire country will lose trust internationally,”
To me, this is the most salient point of the conversation noted in a late September post in Raw Story.  Iran's president knows that America's foreign policy can not make rapid flip flops based on which party is in charge of the executive branch.  It took over 50 years for America to start having civil relations with Cuba.  And he expects that it will take more time for America and Iran to learn to work with each other again - this deal being one of many steps geared to fixing the problems of the past.

- - - - - -

Can we trust the Iranians?  If we were to look at it from a different point of view, one could ask - can they trust us?  Right now, the Iranian President is wise enough to know that the "Clown Car" is spewing out noxious fumes, and will likely get its tuneup in the prelude to the general election.....

Unfit to serve

As much as I have a Liberal political bent (according to today's values), I am willing to listen to people from the conservative side of the aisle.  Unfortunately, one of the "outsiders" on which many conservatives placed their political hopes has shown that he is unfit for the job as POTUS.

One of the things I've learned over the years is that military people take their ranks, their awards, and their service academies very seriously.  It is very important for them to know their place in the grand scheme of things, as armies and navies can not operate according to market based principles.  They must, by definition, operate on a command and control structure to succeed in their missions.

When Ben Carson was found to have lied about him being accepted to West Point, this made him unfit to serve as commander in chief.  Our military must have leaders they can trust - especially when it comes to understanding the military.  When a leader claims that he was accepted into the military elite and turned it down, and then found to be lying, a soldier will wonder - what else is he lying about, and can I trust him to be acting for the country's best interest?  

Our constitution defined a delicate check and balance between civilian and military power by defining the idea of a "well regulated militia" - even though we have an army and a navy, we also have arms in private hands - to preserve the power to rebel against tyrannical authority if needed.  The military was put under the control of civilian authority, so that they would not be independent of the elected government, and so that its focus would be to serve the needs of the nation instead of serving its own needs.  Part of the bargain was that civilians would respect the structure and functions of the military, and serve (when needed) to protect the country.

Ben Carson does not understand this.  If he can't be honest about his past, especially in regard to potential military service, then how can he lead our soldiers?  Hopefully, his supporters will realize this - and find someone else more suited for leadership - even if that candidate is someone I can't support for other reasons....