THE DYNAMIC OF THE DIAMETRICAL: AS LONG AS IT COMES FROM TRUMP I’M AGAINST IT

Authored by William Robert Barber

Within the presence of the politically aware, being against something does not require a rational reason. Indeed, “being against” can be irrational, even stupidly self-defeating. The power of being against means evidence to the contrary of one’s contention is irrelevant.

Once the determination is made to be against President Trump, no words nor action will cause a reversal of opinion. The power of being against intensifies if the cause of (one’s) “against” is questioned. Therefore, the “resistance,” a left-leaning cadre of against-Trump will never ever allow evidence, empirical, circumstantial, or otherwise to change their determination of being against.

Consequently, contrariwise (in my view an operating synonym of against) is an effective contention when the facts do not support one’s against agenda. Nonetheless, in our world of a media more bent on making the news instead of reporting the news a contrariety predicate is considered at a minimum fashionable. Some televised pundits, noting how often the use of a contrariety perspective is recycled, must find this perspective exceptionally  profound — perhaps even intellectually grasping.  In Hollywood, a contrariety declaration is a mandated believable; it does not require truthfulness, accuracy, or deductive viability. For those of the progressive liberal faith, a contrariety perspective is an accepted inductive principle even if observed by a bias blind third-party witness.

In the age of Trump contrariwise is the reliable bait, for comedians a fungible currency; it is the means with which the equity in media companies appreciates. Media marketers relish the interest conflict initiates; certainly, there is no conflicting a person as President Trump. Factually, particularly in the United States, the president is either the subject, the object, or the instigator du jour of every ‘news’ coverage enterprise. Trump the protagonist is the best tangible intangible the media of every ideological stripe has ever profited from.

For a person of conservative temperament it is a frustrating experience to observe the loss of the House of Representatives because of President Trump’s words, persona, and tweets. The man cannot get out of his own way; withstanding, his policies and leadership decisions are much more right than wrong. But then reality is not the sole barometer of one’s judgment of another. Illusion and the great god of circumstance coupled with serendipity play a disproportional part in the grand play of life. But then it is so very easy to be against…

Advertisements

IN REALITY

Authored by William Robert Barber

Raising and expending billions of dollars gives political parties the opportunity (by scattershot multimedia dissemination) to amplify their particular bias. By incentivising (via cash) supportive print and the broadcast media, content producers intentionally challenge the ethical limits of their messaging. For these political wonks winning is the only aspiration. Consequently, amoral principles are the predominant transcendent guidance of their being — their raison d’être.

The didactic lesson: Within the orbit of politics the means is irrelevant and subservient to the results and the ‘how’ one wins is strictly a post-election inconsequential.

Voter participation for this year’s midterm is deemed extremely high; which means that 50 to 60% of the eligible did not vote. Nonetheless, news outlets boasted the turnout as unusually high.

Possibly, the low number of people voting is because citizens are no longer interested in self-governance? Perhaps, Americans have evolved from the self-reliant to the utterly unconcerned? If so, perchance, it would therefore follow that the belief in self-governance is considered passé.

Plausibly, Americans believe that the political thoughts of 1789 are nothing more than remnants of an irrelevant ideal; an ideal that is extraneous to the challenges of this modern world wherein the citizenry considers governance of, by, and for the people too burdensome an endeavor.

The trendy preference does seem to favor governmental dependence on the wherewithal of a bureaucracy chockfull of appointed wonks. Over and over again pretty words and handsome faces prove the voters’ preference.  A thought! “The people,” and their belief in their sovereign power is nothing more than a fanciful wish-it-were-so. Whereby the truth of governance has little to do with the people and more to do with the power of some of the people.

Some of the people derive power from their natural ability and practical experience coupled with an education, formalized to render these few the cognitive skills required to lead. Others within the few may have derived their powerful position from applying excellent follow-ship skills, therefore enhancing the effectiveness of their leader’s wherewithal. Withstanding!

America’s democracy is not in practice people-governed nor does this nation govern of, by, and for the people. America is governed by the few in the interest of the few. Nonetheless, the concept of noblesse oblige, good sense, and the desire to remain in  power obligates the few to embrace pluralism.

At a minimum, a democratic republic requires intense participation, askance, and the courage to pursue virtue over self-interest. However, the American people are preoccupied, disinterested, overwhelmed by governmental ambiguity, confused by the multiple pieces and parts of the process, and easily swayed by pretty faces and words.

America’s success has dulled the average American’s interest in self-governing. “Let someone else do it” is the popular theme…

THE WORLD IS NOT AS ONE WISHES IT TO BE

Authored by William Robert Barber

Violent behavior is an intrinsic component of being human.Violence is inherent in sports. Universally, violence is a component of day-to-day discourse and the willful go-to for the settlement of contested issues. In the last ten thousand years the intensity of killings, maiming, torturing, imprisoning, starving, and the general destruction of the heretofore existing has not abated.

Technological upgrades on weapons started when a humanoid attached a sharpened quartz or flit stone to a stick. Improving the effectiveness of killing other living things evolved into a high priority, a mandate for survival. For purposes of consumption, coercive acquisition, or to protect one armed humanoid from another was — and is — considered common interaction for all living things. The mass production of weapons as well as the need for the steady improvement of weaponry is an established constant of every Nation state.

In order to live, we humans directly kill, indirectly cause, or willfully facilitate the death of other living things. We thoughtlessly kill to consume. Expressions of moral outrage for such behavior is counter-intuitive. Morality plays no part in the quest for food, shelter, and water. With the exception of eating pets and fellow humans, killing for all else is fair game.

Über the average intelligence of our fellow animals we Homo sapiens dominate the earth; the lethal combination of our imaginative sense and insatiable curiosity propels a constancy of evermore/everything. Consequently, the most dangerous carnivore or omnivore in the world is a human being.

So why are we humans shocked that hyper-protection is paramount? Why are we emotionally beset, even psychosomatically effected, by the overt killing of the innocent? Yes, these horrific acts challenge the presumption of common civility. We humans should therefore discard such (silly) presumptions in favor of recognizing life’s reality.

We Americans (for the most part) live in a world of deceptive, often delusional, fantasy. We no longer hunt for what we eat. Others prepare our food and water for consumption. Our day-to-day is far removed from reality. It is as though we were the protagonists in our own television show. We are practicing believers of the rational and reasonable who live in a world that is irrational and unreasonable.

As expressed in the ‘Song of Roland’, steeped in chivalry Roland was a brave and faithful  knight in the service of his lord, Charlemagne. However, Roland’s virtuousness was outmatched by the unscrupulousness of the traitor Ganelon, a practitioner of deceit, falsity, and duplicity. Roland assumed –  and presumed wrongly; therefore he and his fellow knights paid the ultimate price.

The lesson: never let down one’s guard. There are sane practitioners of evil doings as well as the insane intent on executing senseless mayhem. One cannot escape the realities of living. Accept the world for what it is and has always been; if peace is the goal, prepare for war.