Not [Not] to Imagine a Biden-Trump Presidency

Imagine a Biden-Trump presidency where they both had to work together as co-presidents for America’s good.
Would one filibuster the other;
would one seek to outdo the other by gargantuan proportions;
would one try to impeach the other;
would one talk to make people feel good;
would one talk his mind;
would one move to get things done fast;
would one get the true done;
would one help get more business into the pockets of ordinary American businesses;
would one print more dollars to put money in the pocket of America;
would one call bullshit shit;
would one negotiate bullshit;
would one make Americans angry and America happy;
would one make Americans happy and America sad;

Would both be American;
Would the words of the ‘founding fathers’ commend either;

The thinking diffence between the Left and the Right

The left lean on feelings; sometimes to the point that they appear to be brainless.
The right focus on ‘right thinking’; sometimes to the point that they appear to be heartless—depending on who’s looking.

Right thinking focuses more on commonsense, the commonsensical, and absolute truths, ideas that left thinking leaves for last when they consider them.

However, there’s no difference between the extreme left and the extreme right: they either connect to nothing at their extremes, or, if a circle is formed from the continuum line of left to right, the extreme left will connect to the extreme right.

When dealing with humans, that we have feeling and freewill and inherent dignity, makes extremes, if at all considered, only useful, if at all useful, in virtual reality for analysis, and for the sake of curiousity.

The Democrats are good but…

The Democrats are openminded. And that’s good. But they’ve been so openminded that they’ve lost their brains enough times to cause serious concerns about their sanity and America’s future.

That’s why the Republicans might have the better following by truly free thinkers. And why they’re probably better for the United States in the long run. The republicans have their own madness, looking for that good place only found in God: life, liberty, and (the pursuit of) happiness. Democrats as the opposition sounds just right for them today.

When you see democrats act undemocratic, uncharacteristically unfriendly, near foolishly, and according to some mundane philosophy and a hatred of one. Should one not also again fear their reign?

If you can give solid foundations to at least one of these statements, then you must have a case to vote against.


Change your name

Maybe Assad is Great for Syria Still

Bad as it may sound to some,
Assad (the government) might just be the best for Syria,
for now at least.
If Assad was a threat,
ISIS is what?
Why do they fight?
See the heads of those beheaded.
It speaks their hell.

Those, of the North, West, East, and South,
that wanted Assad out of Power in Syria
might want to soft-pedal
and look at a bigger picture.
One where they might return
to the previous stable order.

Were Mubarak and Assad as cohorts:
who seemingly kept evil jihadism at bay.
Can we infer this from the news reports?
What would history say.
If Egypt was led by Morsi, the Muslim brotherhood,
would it end up better or worse than Iran
in the eyes of those that seem to matter?

The Syrian civil war
opened doors to ISIS.
When motive met opportunity,
to expand a certain socio-religio-political identity,
into a state: a caliphate
that walks in the pattern
of seeking to conquer neighbouring states
(the jihad), as Mohammed did,
in other to achieve glory for their god.
Are they going towards Israel?

Noble, it might be, for them.
But certainly not for the rest.
They break the golden rule: love.
And horribly cruelly affect.
Does the world slip and leave them?

So this is an option:
help Assad regain control of the whole of Syria.
Because the enemy of your enemy is your ally.
You don’t have to be friends to ride the same train.
So it looks like it’s happening.

Extracts from ‘The promise’ by C. Wright Mills—With Comments

“Many great public issues as well as many private troubles are described in terms of ‘the psychiatric’ – often, it seems, in a pathetic attempt to avoid the large issues and problems of modern society.”

“… ‘mans chief danger’ today lies in the unruly forces of contemporary society itself, with its alienating methods of production, its enveloping techniques of political domination, its international anarchy – in a word, its pervasive transformations of the very ‘nature’ of human beings and the conditions and aims of their life.”

“Suppose people are neither aware of any cherished values nor experience any threat? That is the experience of indifference, which, if it seems to involve all their values, becomes apathy. Suppose, finally, they are unaware of any cherished values, but still are very much aware of a threat? That is the experience of uneasiness, of anxiety, which, if it is total enough, becomes a deadly unspecified malaise.”

“It is now the social scientist’s foremost political and intellectual task—for here the two coincide—to make clear the elements of contemporary uneasiness and indifference.”

Written in 1959, the article remains contemporary. It makes 2014, and 2013, and 2012, and … look a lot like 1959. A testament to human nature, and a statement that the society created by man makes the man.

Paragraph 1: It’s more comfortable to not deal with root causes. I imagine a situation were few people are sure what it is and how to deal with it, and that most people agree to focus on symptoms—being the more politically correct or democratic route to take.

Paragraph 2: We hear of disruptive technologies, some of which we’ve tasted. We hear less, if at all, about disruptive social and political norms, and laws; evolving everyday, and morphing into new mindsets that may challenge our individual/group humanness and attempt to redefine it for better or worse. We build our houses and contain ourselves in them.

Paragraph 3: Fantastic descriptions of indifference and apathy; very real. I don’t unreservedly agree with his description of anxiety/uneasiness (maybe I haven’t sufficiently understood it), but it does make 95% sense—excellent. 

Paragraph 4: Amateur sociologists/anthropologists abound.