"NATTERING NABOBS OF NEGATIVISM"

"Like I said." — Spiro Agnew

[The national hissifit will either be over come 11/3, or it'll be one mega shit conniption followed by another 4 years of hissifit'n.]

You know the story of the "boy who cried wolf"? He cried "WOLF!" over and over, when in fact there was no wolf. The townspeople got wise to his practical joking. But, it eventually bit him in the ass — well, literally — when in fact there actually was a wolf. The townsfolk paid no attention. Now he's called half-assed.

Which reminds me. The Democrats. 

The Dems have been casting shade on our 45th Potus at every turn and opportunity from day one; really, before. From the ride down that escalator, on and on, to right now when we'll probably see something in the news to add to the stockpile of "proof" that he is quite simply the worst President ever; and even the worst human being ever. The devil's spawn. The epitome of evil. And, even worse.

As I just heard Judge Jeanine Pirro say tonight, "It's been one giant hissifit since November 3, 2016." I wish I had come up with that line. Sums it up nicely. Here's my offering: "Shit conniption." Suggest your own in a comment below.

Seems like they think he can do nothing right. Not one iota of a scintilla of good in the man. 24/7/12/365 full court press denouncing and decrying even the slightest gesture. Don't matter what. Whatever. Late night types make a living doing jokes about him. A lot are funny. But, over time they too add up to the pile of poop dumped on Trump.

Someone is eating it all up. 

I've also noticed the sly practice of slipping in pejorative modifiers when describing his speakings and doings. He just didn't "address the audience". He " rudely and wantonly addressed the audience with glowering menace." That didn't happen; but, if you've been following the, ahem, reportage you get the drift. 

How you see it — or wanna see it — that's the way it is. Say it with conviction and a lot of the rubes will swallow it whole and unmasticated.

Also, stating an opinion about him as fact. Then, probably the most insidious, speculating about what his motives might be, going on and on decrying how he could do such a thing. Makes it out like it's real. To many of the voting public who've already encased their enmity to Our Donald in amber, surrounded by solid concrete, the Democrat politicians' and media pundits' incessant drumbeat over his misdeeds and misstatements is like mother's milk. Honey to bees. Shit to flies.

Take for example the speculation that Donald J. Trump might not vacate the Oval Office should he lose in the 2020 Presidential election. From The Atlantic, Peter Nicholas on June 16, 2020 wrote, "There’s no assurance that Trump will accept the validity of the election results." In all fairness, DT joking about such like, that put a log on that fire. 

Then, as reported by CNN, Mr. former Vice President Biden said, he is "absolutely convinced" the military would escort Trump from the White House if he loses the election but refuses to leave office. Oh, yeah, there's also been all that speculation about Trump "stealing" the election. To top it off, Crooked Hillary has been reported to have told Biden not to concede if the vote goes against him. Wha ...! I'm not making this stuff up folks. Based on what? Pure speculation. Get it? Hint: Joe, don't concede. He was trying to steal the election anyway. 

Here's the calculus: 1. Speculate something terrible about your opponent. 2. Talk about it as if it were real. 3. Denounce it. 4. Suggest remedies. 5. Win the vote. 

On top of all that add in the cumulative effect of all the rolled eyes, sighs, hypothetical world ending scenarios, colorful pejorative words added in to modify simple facts, suppositions, inferences ... I'm running out of ways to put it. The net, net is that all the dumbheads already disposed to not like The Donald have been pumped up to a frenzy way across the border into certitude that a second term of a Trump Presidency would mean the end of democracy, Western civilization, Eastern too; and even kaput to the world as we know it. We should shudder to think what all that might do to motivate some cuckoo idiot to something idiotic, or worse.

This whole kettle of fish has been on my mind for a while. I've written about it in different ways. Still astonished how the anti-Trumpers won't even consider it. He's bad. That's a fact. End of story. And, if you have the cojones to criticize the critics, you must be for Trump. Or, at least, taking away from the anti-Trump narrative. 

Logic, what's that?

I've nattered long enough. Go vote.

Who' Stupid?

Who' Stupid?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, was executed on April 8th, 1945, a few short weeks before Hitler’s own death.

“While awaiting execution, Bonhoeffer recorded a number of his thoughts in a work we now know as 'Letters and Papers from Prison'. One of these essays, entitled ' On Stupidity', records some of the problems which Bonhoeffer likely saw at work in Hitler’s rise to power: The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other.

“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed – in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.”

... And more on his understanding of Stupidity:

"Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity. … THE POWER OF THE ONE NEEDS THE STUPIDITY OF THE OTHER.

The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, for instance, the intellect, suddenly atrophy or fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances. The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.”

― Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison

Talkin' to the BIG GUY:

Is God a Taoist?

by Raymond Smullyan

Mortal:

But I have been taught that your sense of morality -- your sense of justice -- demands that goodness be rewarded with happiness and evil be punished with pain.

God:

Then you have been taught wrong.

Mortal:

But the religious literature is so full of this idea! Take for example Jonathan Edwards's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." How he describes you as holding your enemies like loathsome scorpions over the flaming pit of hell, preventing them from falling into the fate that they deserve only by dint of your mercy.

God:

Fortunately, I have not been exposed to the tirades of Mr. Jonathan Edwards. Few sermons have ever been preached which are more misleading. The very title "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" tells its own tale. In the first place, I am never angry. In the second place, I do not think at all in terms of "sin." In the third place, I have no enemies.

Mortal:

By that do you mean that there are no people whom you hate, or that there are no people who hate you?

God:

I meant the former although the latter also happens to be true.

Mortal:

Oh come now, I know people who have openly claimed to have hated you. At times I have hated you!

God:

You mean you have hated your image of me. That is not the same thing as hating me as I really am.

Mortal:

Are you trying to say that it is not wrong to hate a false conception of you, but that it is wrong to hate you as you really are?

God:

No, I am not saying that at all; I am saying something far more drastic! What I am saying has absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong. What I am saying is that one who knows me for what I really am would simply find it psychologically impossible to hate me.

Mortal:

Tell me, since we mortals seem to have such erroneous views about your real nature, why don't you enlighten us? Why don't you guide us the right way?

God:

What makes you think I'm not?

Mortal:

I mean, why don't you appear to our very senses and simply tell us that we are wrong?

GOD:

Are you really so naive as to believe that I am the sort of being which can appear to your senses? It would be more correct to say that I am your senses.

Mortal (astonished):

You are my senses?

God:

Not quite, I am more than that. But it comes closer to the truth than the idea that I am perceivable by the senses. I am not an object; like you, I am a subject, and a subject can perceive, but cannot be perceived. You can no more see me than you can see your own thoughts. You can see an apple, but the event of your seeing an apple is itself not seeable. And I am far more like the seeing of an apple than the apple itself.

Mortal:

If I can't see you, how do I know you exist?

God:

Good question! How in fact do you know I exist?

Mortal:

Well, I am talking to you, am I not?

God:

How do you know you are talking to me? Suppose you told a psychiatrist, "Yesterday I talked to God." What do you think he would say?

Mortal:

That might depend on the psychiatrist. Since most of them are atheistic, I guess most would tell me I had simply been talking to myself.

God:

And they would be right!

Mortal:

What? You mean you don't exist?

God:

You have the strangest faculty of drawing false conclusions! Just because you are talking to yourself, it follows that I don't exist?

Mortal:

Well, if I think I am talking to you, but I am really talking to myself, in what sense do you exist?

God:

Your question is based on two fallacies plus a confusion. The question of whether or not you are now talking to me and the question of whether or not I exist are totally separate. Even if you were not now talking to me (which obviously you are), it still would not mean that I don't exist.

Mortal:

Well, all right, of course! So instead of saying "if I am talking to myself, then you don't exist," I should rather have said, "if I am talking to myself, then I obviously am not talking to you."

God:

A very different statement indeed, but still false.

Mortal:

Oh, come now, if I am only talking to myself, then how can I be talking to you?

God:

Your use of the word "only" is quite misleading! I can suggest several logical possibilities under which your talking to yourself does not imply that you are not talking to me.

Mortal:

Suggest just one!

God:

Well, obviously one such possibility is that you and I are identical.

Mortal:

Such a blasphemous thought -- at least had I uttered it!

God:

According to some religions, yes. According to others, it is the plain, simple, immediately perceived truth.

Mortal:

So the only way out of my dilemma is to believe that you and I are identical?

God:

Not at all! This is only one way out. There are several others. For example, it may be that you are part of me, in which case you may be talking to that part of me which is you. Or I may be part of you, in which case you may be talking to that part of you which is me. Or again, you and I might partially overlap, in which case you may be talking to the intersection and hence talking both to you and to me. The only way your talking to yourself might seem to imply that you are not talking to me is if you and I were totally disjoint -- and even then, you could conceivably be talking to both of us.

Mortal:

So you claim you do exist.

God:

Not at all. Again you draw false conclusions! The question of my existence has not even come up. All I have said is that from the fact that you are talking to yourself one cannot possibly infer my nonexistence, let alone the weaker fact that you are not talking to me.

Mortal:

All right, I'll grant your point! But what I really want to know is do you exist?

God:

What a strange question!

Mortal:

Why? Men have been asking it for countless millennia.

God:

I know that! The question itself is not strange; what I mean is that it is a most strange question to ask of me!

Mortal:

Why?

God:

Because I am the very one whose existence you doubt! I perfectly well understand your anxiety. You are worried that your present experience with me is a mere hallucination. But how can you possibly expect to obtain reliable information from a being about his very existence when you suspect the nonexistence of the very same being?

Mortal:

So you won't tell me whether or not you exist?

God:

I am not being willful! I merely wish to point out that no answer I could give could possibly satisfy you. All right, suppose I said, "No, I don't exist." What would that prove? Absolutely nothing! Or if I said, "Yes, I exist." Would that convince you? Of course not!

Mortal:

Well, if you can't tell me whether or not you exist, then who possibly can?

God:

That is something which no one can tell you. It is something which only you can find out for yourself.

Mortal:

How do I go about finding this out for myself?

God:

That also no one can tell you. This is another thing you will have to find out for yourself.

Mortal:

So there is no way you can help me?

God:

I didn't say that. I said there is no way I can tell you. But that doesn't mean there is no way I can help you.

Mortal:

In what manner then can you help me?

God:

I suggest you leave that to me! We have gotten sidetracked as it is, and I would like to return to the question of what you believed my purpose to be in giving you free will. Your first idea of my giving you free will in order to test whether you merit salvation or not may appeal to many moralists, but the idea is quite hideous to me. You cannot think of any nicer reason -- any more humane reason -- why I gave you free will?

Mortal:

Well now, I once asked this question of an Orthodox rabbi. He told me that the way we are constituted, it is simply not possible for us to enjoy salvation unless we feel we have earned it. And to earn it, we of course need free will.

God:

That explanation is indeed much nicer than your former but still is far from correct. According to Orthodox Judaism, I created angels, and they have no free will. They are in actual sight of me and are so completely attracted by goodness that they never have even the slightest temptation toward evil. They really have no choice in the matter. Yet they are eternally happy even though they have never earned it. So if your rabbi's explanation were correct, why wouldn't I have simply created only angels rather than mortals?

Mortal:

Beats me! Why didn't you?

God:

Because the explanation is simply not correct. In the first place, I have never created any ready-made angels. All sentient beings ultimately approach the state which might be called "angelhood." But just as the race of human beings is in a certain stage of biologic evolution, so angels are simply the end result of a process of Cosmic Evolution. The only difference between the so-called saint and the so-called sinner is that the former is vastly older than the latter. Unfortunately it takes countless life cycles to learn what is perhaps the most important fact of the universe -- evil is simply painful. All the arguments of the moralists -- all the alleged reasons why people shouldn't commit evil acts -- simply pale into insignificance in light of the one basic truth that evil is suffering.

No, my dear friend, I am not a moralist. I am wholly a utilitarian. That I should have been conceived in the role of a moralist is one of the great tragedies of the human race. My role in the scheme of things (if one can use this misleading expression) is neither to punish nor reward, but to aid the process by which all sentient beings achieve ultimate perfection.

Mortal:

Why did you say your expression is misleading?

God:

What I said was misleading in two respects. First of all it is inaccurate to speak of my role in the scheme of things. I am the scheme of things. Secondly, it is equally misleading to speak of my aiding the process of sentient beings attaining enlightenment. I am the process. The ancient Taoists were quite close when they said of me (whom they called "Tao") that I do not do things, yet through me all things get done. In more modem terms, I am not the cause of Cosmic Process, I am Cosmic Process itself. I think the most accurate and fruitful definition of me which man can frame -- at least in his present state of evolution -- is that I am the very process of enlightenment. Those who wish to think of the devil (although I wish they wouldn't!) might analogously define him as the unfortunate length of time the process takes. In this sense, the devil is necessary; the process simply does take an enormous length of time, and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it. But, I assure you, once the process is more correctly understood, the painful length of time will no longer be regarded as an essential limitation or an evil. It will be seen to be the very essence of the process itself. I know this is not completely consoling to you who are now in the finite sea of suffering, but the amazing thing is that once you grasp this fundamental attitude, your very finite suffering will begin to diminish -- ultimately to the vanishing point.

Mortal:

I have been told this, and I tend to believe it. But suppose I personally succeed in seeing things through your eternal eyes. Then I will be happier, but don't I have a duty to others?

GOD (laughing):

You remind me of the Mahayana Buddhists! Each one says, "I will not enter Nirvana until I first see that all other sentient beings do so." So each one waits for the other fellow to go first. No wonder it takes them so long! The Hinayana Buddhist errs in a different direction. He believes that no one can be of the slightest help to others in obtaining salvation; each one has to do it entirely by himself. And so each tries only for his own salvation. But this very detached attitude makes salvation impossible. The truth of the matter is that salvation is partly an individual and partly a social process. But it is a grave mistake to believe -- as do many Mahayana Buddhists -- that the attaining of enlightenment puts one out of commission, so to speak, for helping others. The best way of helping others is by first seeing the light oneself.

Mortal:

There is one thing about your self-description which is somewhat disturbing. You describe yourself essentially as a process. This puts you in such an impersonal light, and so many people have a need for a personal God.

God:

So because they need a personal God, it follows that I am one?

Mortal:

Of course not. But to be acceptable to a mortal a religion must satisfy his needs.

God:

I realize that. But the so-called "personality" of a being is really more in the eyes of the beholder than in the being itself. The controversies which have raged, about whether I am a personal or an impersonal being are rather silly because neither side is right or wrong. From one point of view, I am personal, from another, I am not. It is the same with a human being. A creature from another planet may look at him purely impersonally as a mere collection of atomic particles behaving according to strictly prescribed physical laws. He may have no more feeling for the personality of a human than the average human has for an ant. Yet an ant has just as much individual personality as a human to beings like myself who really know the ant. To look at something impersonally is no more correct or incorrect than to look at it personally, but in general, the better you get to know something, the more personal it becomes. To illustrate my point, do you think of me as a personal or impersonal being?

Mortal:

Well, I'm talking to you, am I not?

God:

Exactly! From that point of view, your attitude toward me might be described as a personal one. And yet, from another point of view -- no less valid -- I can also be looked at impersonally.

Mortal:

But if you are really such an abstract thing as a process, I don't see what sense it can make my talking to a mere "process."

God:

I love the way you say "mere." You might just as well say that you are living in a "mere universe." Also, why must everything one does make sense? Does it make sense to talk to a tree?

Mortal:

Of course not!

God:

And yet, many children and primitives do just that.

Mortal:

But I am neither a child nor a primitive.

God:

I realize that, unfortunately.

Mortal:

Why unfortunately?

God:

Because many children and primitives have a primal intuition which the likes of you have lost. Frankly, I think it would do you a lot of good to talk to a tree once in a while, even more good than talking to me! But we seem always to be getting sidetracked! For the last time, I would like us to try to come to an understanding about why I gave you free will.

Mortal:

I have been thinking about this all the while.

God:

You mean you haven't been paying attention to our conversation?

Mortal:

Of course I have. But all the while, on another level, I have been thinking about it.

God:

And have you come to any conclusion?

Mortal:

Well, you say the reason is not to test our worthiness. And you disclaimed the reason that we need to feel that we must merit things in order to enjoy them. And you claim to be a utilitarian. Most significant of all, you appeared so delighted when I came to the sudden realization that it is not sinning in itself which is bad but only the suffering which it causes.

God:

Well of course! What else could conceivably be bad about sinning?

Mortal:

All right, you know that, and now I know that. But all my life I unfortunately have been under the influence of those moralists who hold sinning to be bad in itself. Anyway, putting all these pieces together, it occurs to me that the only reason you gave free will is because of your belief that with free will, people will tend to hurt each other -- and themselves -- less than without free will.

God:

Bravo! That is by far the best reason you have yet given! I can assure you that had I chosen to give free will, that would have been my very reason for so choosing.

Mortal:

What! You mean to say you did not choose to give us free will?

God:

My dear fellow, I could no more choose to give you free will than I could choose to make an equilateral triangle equiangular. I could choose to make or not to make an equilateral triangle in the first place, but having chosen to make one, I would then have no choice but to make it equiangular.

Mortal:

I thought you could do anything!

God:

Only things which are logically possible. As St. Thomas said, "It is a sin to regard the fact that God cannot do the impossible, as a limitation on His powers." I agree, except that in place of his using the word sin I would use the term error.

Mortal:

Anyhow, I am still puzzled by your implication that you did not choose to give me free will.

God:

Well, it is high time I inform you that the entire discussion -- from the very beginning -- has been based on one monstrous fallacy! We have been talking purely on a moral level -- you originally complained that I gave you free will, and raised the whole question as to whether I should have. It never once occurred to you that I had absolutely no choice in the matter.

Mortal:

I am still in the dark!

God:

Absolutely! Because you are only able to look at it through the eyes of a moralist. The more fundamental metaphysical aspects of the question you never even considered.

Mortal:

I still do not see what you are driving at.

God:

Before you requested me to remove your free will, shouldn't your first question have been whether as a matter of fact you do have free will?

Mortal:

That I simply took for granted.

God:

But why should you?

Mortal:

I don't know. Do I have free will?

God:

Yes.

Mortal:

Then why did you say I shouldn't have taken it for granted?

God:

Because you shouldn't. Just because something happens to be true, it does not follow that it should be taken for granted.

Mortal:

Anyway, it is reassuring to know that my natural intuition about having free will is correct. Sometimes I have been worried that determinists are correct.

God:

They are correct.

Mortal:

Wait a minute now, do I have free will or don't I?

God:

I already told you you do. But that does not mean that determinism is incorrect.

Mortal:

Well, are my acts determined by the laws of nature or aren't they?

God:

The word determined here is subtly but powerfully misleading and has contributed so much to the confusions of the free will versus determinism controversies. Your acts are certainly in accordance with the laws of nature, but to say they are determined by the laws of nature creates a totally misleading psychological image which is that your will could somehow be in conflict with the laws of nature and that the latter is somehow more powerful than you, and could "determine" your acts whether you liked it or not. But it is simply impossible for your will to ever conflict with natural law. You and natural law are really one and the same.

Mortal:

What do you mean that I cannot conflict with nature? Suppose I were to become very stubborn, and I determined not to obey the laws of nature. What could stop me? If I became sufficiently stubborn even you could not stop me!

God:

You are absolutely right! I certainly could not stop you. Nothing could stop you. But there is no need to stop you, because you could not even start! As Goethe very beautifully expressed it, "In trying to oppose Nature, we are, in the very process of doing so, acting according to the laws of nature!" Don't you see that the so-called "laws of nature" are nothing more than a description of how in fact you and other beings do act? They are merely a description of how you act, not a prescription of of how you should act, not a power or force which compels or determines your acts. To be valid a law of nature must take into account how in fact you do act, or, if you like, how you choose to act.

Mortal:

So you really claim that I am incapable of determining to act against natural law?

God:

It is interesting that you have twice now used the phrase "determined to act" instead of "chosen to act." This identification is quite common. Often one uses the statement "I am determined to do this" synonymously with "I have chosen to do this." This very psychological identification should reveal that determinism and choice are much closer than they might appear. Of course, you might well say that the doctrine of free will says that it is you who are doing the determining, whereas the doctrine of determinism appears to say that your acts are determined by something apparently outside you. But the confusion is largely caused by your bifurcation of reality into the "you" and the "not you." Really now, just where do you leave off and the rest of the universe begin? Or where does the rest of the universe leave off and you begin? Once you can see the so-called "you" and the so-called "nature" as a continuous whole, then you can never again be bothered by such questions as whether it is you who are controlling nature or nature who is controlling you. Thus the muddle of free will versus determinism will vanish. If I may use a crude analogy, imagine two bodies moving toward each other by virtue of gravitational attraction. Each body, if sentient, might wonder whether it is he or the other fellow who is exerting the "force." In a way it is both, in a way it is neither. It is best to say that it is the configuration of the two which is crucial.

Mortal:

You said a short while ago that our whole discussion was based on a monstrous fallacy. You still have not told me what this fallacy is.

God:

Why, the idea that I could possibly have created you without free will! You acted as if this were a genuine possibility, and wondered why I did not choose it! It never occurred to you that a sentient being without free will is no more conceivable than a physical object which exerts no gravitational attraction. (There is, incidentally, more analogy than you realize between a physical object exerting gravitational attraction and a sentient being exerting free will!) Can you honestly even imagine a conscious being without free will? What on earth could it be like? I think that one thing in your life that has so misled you is your having been told that I gave man the gift of free will. As if I first created man, and then as an afterthought endowed him with the extra property of free will. Maybe you think I have some sort of "paint brush" with which I daub some creatures with free will and not others. No, free will is not an "extra"; it is part and parcel of the very essence of consciousness. A conscious being without free will is simply a metaphysical absurdity ...

Those Cops!

Police Blotter ... Anywhere US of A

Police attempt to arrest a subject. But he resists, and they must subdue him.

This can go many ways:

1. Suspect not identified ...

The cops are doing their job. No news there.

2. What if the suspect is Black?

Must be investigated for possible abuse.

3. It's a Black cop ... 

That's bad too bad.

4. It's a white cop ... 

That's racist. Stop thinking. Clearly racist. Protests are called for. Relatives vouch for suspect's good character.

5. Suspect Dies in the ensuing struggle ...

Sainthood. Protests. Rioting. Cities go up in flames.

6. Coroner finds suspect died of cause(s) unrelated to police activity ...

Crickets. Don't confuse us with the facts. Family investigator finds to the contrary. Nothing resolved.

7. Aftermath ...

Protests, rioting, property damage and personal injury escalate and spread across the country — a few deaths, even. Becomes a political football in the blame game.

Division! Divisive!

It's a pretty well worn and [too] often heard criticism that the current occupant of the Oval Office is divisive.

  

Seems "division" has been a hot chestnut in the political roasting pan times before. Remembering George W. Bush stressing how he is "... A uniter, not a divider". Now that particular item may have more to do with Bush suggesting that in politics it tends to be too divisive. And, it was argued that that was essentially an appeal to have no politics. At least in areas of agency and policy where it would be in one side's self interest to quell debate.

  

But, isn't it a structural fact that politics carries with it the struggle between opposing ideas and positions. By definition, divisive. Or, more precisely, divided. Fuggedaboutit. That's not my point. I'll let you ponder all the foregoing on your own time.

  

The thing in this 2020 election year — and pretty much since the onset of the 45th's term — has been the Democrat lockstep cry that Donald Trump is divisive. By implication and overtly stated assertions, on the other hand, the good and reliable Joe Biden would be the correction to that; he's a uniter. Well, he does have a track record for being a both-sides-of-the-aisle kind of operator.

  

Yet, I'm struck by the fact that except for the Democrats harping on the claim that DT is a divider, — who ya gonna call? — isn't that divisive in itself? Perhaps, one might argue, the very source of the division.

  

Now, I'm not pitching for the Democrats to not criticize the opposition. [Maybe a little too up to here, however, having had to endure the relentless 24/7/12/365 onslaught of bashing and defaming.] Certainly if we hadn't heard a peep of protest against The Donald, where would it even be suggested that he is a divider. Even to accuse him of that as a generality would be divisive.

  

Look! C'mon, man! [Per Joe] I'm not saying that the President Donald J. Trump hasn't done anything divisive. Let betters hash that one out; oh, you know they will. I'm saying that if not for the very criticisms of dividerishness from the, ahem, loyal opposition, how would the claim that he is a divider be able to stick?

  

Simply put, they have made the charge having been the perpetrators of the same charge in order to make the charge. There's probably a term for that, but I don't know what it is. My education only went so far. And, my willingness to slog around trying to look it up has its bounds. Imagine an Internet search: "What do you call it when the accuser is guilty of the same thing he is accusing in order to make the accusation?" FYI to save you the trouble of looking it up yourself, the search turns up ... "False accusation. Unsupported by the facts." Interesting. But, not really answering the question definitively, huh? [Unless you're a confirmed and blindered Republican and spark to that since it fits your preconceived notions. Oh, there's that sort too on the Democratic side; plenty.]

  

The Democrats have lost a great deal of cred with me over the stunning display of invective toward the current Potus. Wonder what could have been accomplished if that bunch spent even some time working with him. But, no. As I like to put it 24/7/12/365 full press anti just about anything the man says or does. C'mon, man! Not one scintilla of an iota of anything redeemable in the guy?

  

That notion, right there what I just stated, makes me think that the Dems are so cynical — that their constituents will swallow whole whatever they put out on the porch for the cat to lick up — and purely political that it might be argued that they have been derelict in their sworn duty to protect the Constitution and, as just plain old human beings, having not done the right thing.

Now, who's a divider? Divisive?

  

Well, just for writing this in the way I've written it, yes, I'm one of them. That's duality for you. It comes hard wired, divisive. 

Note to self: transcend.

Peaceful Protest?

Peaceful Protest. Really!?

It seems that we're in a time when the basic meaning of things is being reconfigured.

Witness the "peaceful protest" below. Peaceful right up to being in your face 1 millimeter apart;  or, screaming at the top of your lungs right into someone's ear.

Seems it's one little nudge to becoming violent protesting.

Also wondering just what those "protesters" are so worked up about. Or, maybe the better question ... why? 

In any event, seems like the hoi polloi are restless.