Donald and Fidel

 

                     Castro and Putin, another Trump Supporter

Fidel Castro led a popular revolution which took over Cuba in 1959. I was in high school at the time. When it became clear that Castro was a communist, many of the more affluent Cubans migrated to America. One of these was a friend of my mother’s. When she got back to the States she told my mother about how Cuba had changed under Castro. 

What struck me was what she said about the people he put into leadership positions. She said that they were the least competent, the least qualified people he could have picked. 

As Donald Trump makes his cabinet and other appointments known, I think you could describe them in the same way. From Mike Huckabee, the new Ambassador to Israel, a fundamentalist Christian who believes the Bible gives Israel the right to occupy the West Bank and Gaza, to Tom Homan, new Director of Immigration Enforcement, and author of the cruel family separation policy of Trump’s first term. From Matt Gaetz, Trump’s new Attorney General, under investigation for sexual misconduct by the House of Representatives, to Pete Hegseth, a political commentator on Fox News, now appointed Secretary of Defense, to Dan Scavino, Trump’s former golf caddie, now deputy White House Chief of Staff.    

What do these misfits have in common? They are loyal to Trump and dependent on him for their prominent positions. I suspect Castro’s appointees had the same qualifications.

 

Arab Lives Matter

                                                                   Gaza City

I’m really getting tired of the Israelis killing Palestinians and Lebanese, and now it looks like they’re getting ready to kill some Iranians. After they blew up Hezbollah’s pagers and walkie-talkies, killing or injuring thousands, not only Hezbollah’s members but also whatever Lebanese civilians happened to be close by, my first response was that Israel is now the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism. Now they’re planning a ground invasion of Lebanon, and who knows what in Iran. 

This is after they’ve spent a year killing Palestinians, over 40,000 of them, both in Gaza and the West Bank, in what really amounts to genocide, after the Hamas staged an invasion of Israel, killing a little over a thousand Israelis, and taking 250 hostages.   

Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah and has sent two barrages of missiles toward Israel after Israel killed several Iranian and Hezbollah military leaders. It amounted to a protest, since most of the missiles were intercepted and few Israelis were injured.  Now Israel is planning a major attack on Iranian military and infrastructure. 

I’m no expert, but it seems to me that the Arab nations, especially the Palestinians, have a legitimate grievance against Israel. Israel’s very existence is illegal, since their land was originally Palestine. The Israelis have continued to encroach on the areas left to the Palestinians by building settlements there. The Palestinians have fought and lobbied for independence in the world court. They don’t have the military power to win independence, but they have won their legal battles. I can understand why the Palestinians have resorted to terrorism and why the other Arab states have supported them, because they can’t win a war. 

I have been sympathetic to Israel’s desire for a homeland, a refuge from the antisemitism around the world, but I can’t condone their continued slaughter of Arabs in the countries surrounding them. 

It’s as though they are playing a game: “If you kill one of ours, we’ll kill ten of yours.” So they continue to attack and kill Arabs, as if to say, “That’ll teach you.” Of course, they’ve proved over and over that responding to terror attacks just enrages Arab victims and inspires more to become terrorists. 

The result is more and more killing, weighted more toward Arab casualties, and in Gaza it really does seem like a war of genocide.

My response is that “Arab lives matter!” What I don’t understand is why casualties, deaths don’t seem to enter into Israeli, or Arab calculations. There have been a few programs to develop understanding and personal relationships between Arabs and Israelis, but, while successful on a small scale, these programs seem to be outweighed by the decisions of militant leaders. 

The punch line to this tragic conundrum is that the enabler of all this hostility and killing is us. We support Israel with money, weapons, and if necessary, military backup. They have pursued their genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, their attacks in Lebanon, and possibly a war with Iran knowing that we will support them, no matter what. They’re betting their very existence on our support. Biden can urge a cease fire, negotiations, and limited responses to Arab protests, but his words are meaningless as he continues to provide Israel with huge bombs and high tech defensive systems, and to surround the area with aircraft carriers for Israel’s “defense.” 

I’m not Arab or Israeli, and I don’t understand the complicated relations between the Arab nations, or Israeli politics. I just think everyone needs to consider the lives and suffering of the people involved.    

The Maga Movement

 

                                                                  Proud Boys

 

I do make an effort to be evenhanded and nonjudgemental.  That is why I try to see different perspectives.  Hooray for me.

But –

I have zero tolerance for Bullies and Liars.  I am judgmental on people who are judgmental.

Trump is perhaps the biggest bully in a position of power in this country, at least in our lifetimes.

Trump is the worst liar, at least the most prolific.  Santos was bad, but didn’t talk 24-7.

Trump portrays himself is vastly superior to everyone else.

Trump portrays himself as the most popular person on the planet.  Loved by all (that aren’t evil and stupid).

Most of the people that do love him fall into the judgmental category.

Cousin Steve

I’m still trying to figure out how Donald Trump has taken control of the Republican Party. He’s not charismatic – see blog of August 18, 2024. He’s rich, but he hasn’t been that successful in business. He’s actually gone bankrupt 5 or 6 times. I forget which. He hasn’t been a successful executive. His money is in real estate, and it seems like many of his business ventures are crooked. His “Trump  University” was a scam and he had to pay a fine for cheating his students. He used money from his “charity” for personal expenses and had to pay a fine for that. He has avoided paying income tax by underestimating the value of his properties and has gotten loans and insurance by overestimating those same properties. The only thing he has succeeded at has been his TV show, “The Apprentice.”

 

It seems Trump can get away with anything, winning a presidential election after bragging about fondling women. As president, he funneled money to himself by holding official events at his resorts, requiring that government personnel stay at his hotels, and even accepting money from foreign governments for favors, contracts and grants.

 

Now, after all Trump’s scandals, he is in control of the Republican party. His daughter in law is now chair of the party, and Republican candidates can’t get on the ballot without an endorsement from him.  He caused a bipartisan immigration bill to be killed in the House of Representatives just so it would remain an issue he could  run for reelection on. He is currently running neck and neck with  Kamila Harris in the race for president, polling just under 50% among registered voters. How can this be?

 

Trump’s followers seem to have blind faith in whatever he tells them. They believed he won the presidential election of 2019 without any evidence, and then mobbed the capital on January 6, 2020 in an effort to keep him in power. He has claimed that the current administration is targeting him with law suits and his followers have made death threats against politicians, attorneys, government officials who have opposed him. At the same time he has threatened to prosecute officials in power now if he regains power, and to try for treason military officers who stood up to him.

 

Trump seems to be trying to create a mass movement such as Eric Hoffer describes in his book, The True Believer. According to Hoffer, mass movements, whether religious, revolutionary, or nationalistic have many things in common. They attract followers by a frustration with the present, and unite them by a desire for change. They need a leader who kindles enthusiasm for a cause, whether it be untold riches, radical societal reform, a common fear, or the coming of a Heavenly Kingdom, and they need a source of power. Mass movements all attract the same type of individuals: the poor, the misfits, the outcasts, the sinners, those who view their lives as ruined, those who want to replace their meaningless lives with a holy cause. Mass movements, regardless of their purpose, all breed fanaticism, violence and chaos, and their early followers, even though they may be in the minority, shape the character of the movement.

 

In my opinion, Trump’s MAGA Republicans check all these boxes. They share a fear and hatred for immigrants and foreigners, and they  favor change: change in government institutions, the “deep state” as they like to call it, change in international relations, the traditional alliances, free trade, even our constitution and election system. Many of Trump’s followers, such as politicians, have gone along with him in order to stay in power, and many supporters, such as wealthy businessmen and foreign leaders support him because of promised favors or financial gain, but his base, those who cheer at his rallies and those who stormed the Capital on January 6, come from the lower classes of society, those with no respect for the current system such as the “Proud boys,” the “skinheads,” Neo-nazis and other fanatical groups supporting white supremacy, Misogyny, antisemitism, gun rights, etc. These groups have the potential to produce violence and  chaos.

 

Whether the MAGA movement gains the power to develop into a  full blown mass movement depends on whether the moderate majority summons the courage to fight to preserve our system.

Eric Hoffer

 

Eric Hoffer

I ‘ve always enjoyed living vicariously. It started when I was a child. I was surrounded by fascinating, almost magical people. Maybe all children see adults this way, but I felt a sense of excitement around my aunts and uncles. They were funny; they told exciting stories, and they -especially my aunts- had a way of making a little boy feel special. When they all got together I was spellbound listening to them reminisce and talk about who they had known and what they had done. One of my uncles was a lawyer and judge, another was a construction worker who had worked all over the world. And that was just my mother’s family. My dad didn’t talk much, but he actually told the best stories, about growing up on the farm, about his experiences as a tough kid, and as a high school and college athlete. After I retired I got to spend hours listening to my mother’s recollections about her life and her family, some of which I included in the book, Wenonah’s Story. 

I’ve always sought out and valued friends that I admired: my wise cousin I’ve mentioned before, my best friend from childhood, my partner in medical practice. 

I’ve always enjoyed reading, and am usually in the middle of one book or several. I enjoy fantasizing about fictional characters who are able to do amazing things, but also historical figures. I know now that real events and real people are more amazing than anything a fiction writer can imagine. 

Reading a book by an amazing person makes you feel on a level with them, as if reading about their adventures and understanding their thoughts somehow allows you to share their experiences and possess in a small way their ideas. 

I’ve recently been rereading a little book by one of my heroes, Eric Hoffer.  His ideas are pretty universal, but they seem especially relevant in today’s political climate. 

Hoffer spent much of his life as a tramp, riding on boxcars from one place to another doing odd jobs to make money to live. After being turned down for military service during WWII, he went to work as a longshoreman on the docks of San Francisco where he spent the next 20 years. Hoffer was self taught and was an avid reader and learner all his life. Every place he went, he got library cards and spent most of his time in libraries reading whatever interested him. He told the story that once he was working at a nursery repotting plants. He began to wonder why the roots grew down and the stems grew up, so he quit his job, hopped on a boxcar and headed for the nearest town with a library where he checked out a book on botany. 

At one point Hoffer decided to mine for gold. He took with him a book by the French philosopher, Michel de Montaigne, which he read and reread. Later, when he returned to his itinerant lifestyle, he would frequently quote Montaigne in discussions with other vagrants, so much that they would often ask him, “what does Montaigne have to say about that?” He said, “I always believed that there must be several hundred hobos up and down San Joaquin Valley still quoting Montaigne.” 

It was when he settled down near the docks in San Francisco that he began to write seriously. He would work on the docks for a few weeks and then write until he ran out of money. When he received a telegram from Harper’s accepting his first book, The True Believer, Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, he threw the little yellow paper away thinking it was an ad. He said, “I never had a telegram in my life.” 

The True Believer was published in 1951 and became a best seller in 1956 when President Eisenhower mentioned Hoffer as his favorite author. Hoffer wrote ten books as well as numerous articles and memoirs. He was consulted by several presidents on national affairs; he received several honorary doctorates, was made an adjunct professor at UC Berkeley, and in 1983 was awarded the Medal of Freedom by President Ronald Reagan. 

Eric Hoffer was obviously a genius, but I think he stands out even among geniuses. How many great men are totally self taught, refuse wealth, and become recognized as one of the great thinkers of their time? 

Like I said before, Eric Hoffer is one of my heroes, and I thought I should give a little background about him in case I want to refer to some of his ideas in future posts.

 

https://www.hoover.org/research/eric-hoffer-genius-and-enigma

What’s Trump’s secret? Is it Charisma?

 

Jesus Christ

The first I can remember witnessing the power of charisma was as a teenager. I was attending a summer camp for young musicians sponsored by the Musician’s Union. One evening I was sitting in the dining hall after our evening meal just listening to people talk. I noticed a handful of people, probably a half dozen, clustered around a man – he was older than most of us at the camp. I can’t remember what he was talking about, but what impressed me was the rapt attention he was getting from his audience. Something about his delivery, his manner, his status, something was having an almost hypnotic effect on them. 

Since then I’ve observed this power, call it charisma for lack of a better word, several times.  It’s usually been in teachers. One in particular comes to mind. It was our neuroanatomy teacher in medical school. A more boring subject you couldn’t imagine, but Dr. Daron – that was his name – was so logical, and his presentations flowed so easily from one subject to another, that he was fascinating. He made a difficult, complicated subject seem simple. He got the award for the best teacher several times if I remember right. 

An interesting thing about Dr. Daron’s lectures was that he made neuroanatomy seem so simple that I was tempted not to take notes. As a result, when I began to study the material he had covered, I found that I didn’t remember what he had said in his lecture. I was so fascinated by his presentation, his charisma, that I sometimes forgot what he actually said. 

I’ve always admired good speakers. I have trouble holding an audience’s attention myself, but I come from a family of lawyers and politicians, so even though I didn’t inherit the speaking gene, I have witnessed good speaking all my life. My mother was my first example. 

She used to give me a lecture every time I did something wrong, and her lecture would usually culminate in a ‘whuppin.’ I think that’s how she built up her resolve before she administered my punishment. 

These lectures put me in a state of panic since I knew what was coming, but even so, I used to admire how persuasive she was. She almost convinced me I needed a whipping. She had the family gene for speaking. I used to think to myself that if she had been a man she’d probably have been elected governor. 

I’ve discussed my admiration for good speakers with my wise cousin Steve, and he disagrees. He thinks that a clever, convincing speaker clouds an issue. It’s important to make judgements based on fact, and one should remain open minded, check facts, and always listen to opinions on both sides of an issue. It’s analogous to his views about businessmen. He says “don’t trust a ‘good businessman,” and likewise, “don’t trust a good speaker.” His mother had the speaking gene too, by the way. Maybe he just didn’t get as many whippins as I did. 

There are different uses of charisma. They vary from just giving a fascinating lecture, like my neuroanatomy professor or my mother,  to convincing people to change their lives, like the leader of a cult. Recently I have noticed that the Republican party has taken on some of the attributes of a cult. They follow their leader without question, even if he changes his policies, or even lies to them. They’re even willing to break the law – many have gone to jail – to support their leader. 

That led me to conclude that Donald Trump must be charismatic. It seems that all great political leaders have been charismatic:  Lincoln, FDR, John F Kennedy. But then I listened carefully to some of his speeches, and he’s not charismatic at all. His speeches have no continuity. They don’t focus his listener’s attention on certain phrases or ideas. They don’t build up to a climax. His speeches are rambling. He contradicts himself. He emphasizes trivial, petty issues like Obama’s birth or Harris’ race. He’s really not a good speaker.   

I compared Trump’s speeches with Harris’ and discovered that it’s her speeches that are charismatic. She commands your attention with a simple statement that most can identify with, like “we’re fighting for the middle class.” Then she systematically tics off the ways she will accomplish her goals, and contrasts that with Trump’s record. And she repeats catch phrases like “Trump only cares about himself,” or “we’re not going back.” Her speeches slow smoothly from one topic to the next, and she builds up to one climax after another, holding your attention. 

So if Trump is not charismatic, how is it that he has gotten control of the Republican party, and the support of half the country? 

To be continued.

Cotton Eyed Joe

Why Not an AI Fact Checker?

                                                       

                                        

                                                Beelzebub

As I was  listening to the recent presidential debate I thought of another use for AI. It could be used to expose lies. There could be a red light installed above each candidate which would come on if he/she told a lie. It could even be more specific, differentiating between inaccuracies, evasion, exaggeration, claims inconsistent with previous actions, statements or policies. If the candidate challenged the machine, it could provide documentation, or even recordings of previous remarks.  I can imagine a candidate being laughed off the stage. From what I understand about AI, this would be an easy task. 

I guess politicians have always lied, or at least exaggerated, either to discredit the opposing candidate or to boost their own reputation. My grandmother used to tell a story about my uncle’s first campaign for the Oklahoma State House of Representatives. His opponent accused him of cattle rustling! Grandmother’s response was, “If he’s stealing cattle, I don’t know where he’s putting them.” He won anyway. 

I can remember my mother, who today would be considered a political junkie, complaining about the liars and crooks in politics. Back then Oklahoma was a one party state, which made it easier to get away with lying if the politician was in good standing with the party. She used to argue with another of her brothers, a judge, who believed it was important to support your party, so that party policies could be enacted. He was a expert debater, but I thought she held her own pretty well. 

It seems to me that things are different now. It used to be that a politician caught in a lie would be embarrassed. He/she would have to explain themselves, come up with an excuse, claim he forgot or was misunderstood. It seems that there are more lies now. Politicians don’t hesitate to change their positions, or flat out contradict previous statements, and there’s no backlash.   

How in the world could a person like George Santos ever get elected to anything? He lied about his education, his birth, his accomplishments. He claimed his grandparents were Holocaust survivors, that he was a volleyball champion, that he was a wealthy businessman and philanthropist, all lies, but still was elected to Congress. His lies were bad enough that he was expelled, but it’s a sign of the times.  Lying is more acceptable now. Even the senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, now supports Donald Trump,  even though after the January 6^th insurrection he stated that Trump was responsible. 

Lying is not only accepted, it has become a strategy. Steve Bannon, an outspoken right wing spokesman said, that if you “flood the zone with shit” the public can’t deal with so many lies, so can’t make decisions. That strikes at the root of democracy. How can the electorate make decisions if they don’t know who they can trust? 

Another observation, just as alarming, was made by historian Anne Applebaum, quoted by Brian Stelter in a recent Time magazine article: "sometimes the point isn't to make people believe a lie—it's to make people fear the liar." It’s to assert power over reality. If you lived under the power of a ruthless leader, truth would become irrelevant. Ask a North Korean or Russian. 

That’s why I propose using AI for fact checking. You could load it with background information about politicians’ records and previous statements, about historical and current events. It could be fast enough to provide an immediate response during a speech. It could rate politicians on honesty and performance. Let’s do it! The future of our democracy might depend on it.