Those who Advocate For Wiping Out LGBTQ

One of the most compelling arguments against those who advocate for wiping out LGBTQ+ representation through media and enacting discriminatory laws is the importance of equality, human rights, and inclusivity as part and parcel of living in modern America. 

Now we have a POTUS-elect in convicted felon Donald Trump who is all in for disrupting much of what advances have been made (Trump on LGBTQ Rights: Rolling Back Protections and Criminalizing Gender Nonconformity). Has there been overreach by recent administrations on the side of "progressiveness"? A good word for humanitarians and those involved in societal advancements while decreasing abuses by the many upon the few, but a bad word to those on the right who just can't see that's a thing.

I agree there may have been some overreach but not to the degree being sold by the right. Part of their issue is not having been allowed to catch up, or some things feeling imposed upon them not only against their will, or awareness, but beliefs, culture, religion, and indeed, part of that is historical misperceptions, bigotry, and racism. Some of THAT is wrapped up in their history, culture, and politics.

There should have been more persuading, more educating, more awareness, and coaxing. But to be fair, many on the Right vehemently thwarted that, and some of that will never, ever work with some of those people and in those subcultures whose substance is built upon a rejection of certain lifestyles or ways of thinking. 

To some degree, that's fine. Except, this is America and they need to catch up to who we actually are, a country of acceptance even the Founding Fathers didn't fully realize the full impact of that. Some, they would go against many today on the right. Some could never come to terms with it because of the climate of the times they lived in. 

But it's up to us to realize how this is at odds with moving forward, and also how they, the Framers and many today stuck in their cemented anachronistic beliefs, need to either get with the program or be dragged kicking and screaming into the present.

Much of this is based in religion, the religious Right, Christian Nationalists, and others pushing what should remain private. Enjoy your beliefs, just leave others alone. We're not all theists or at your level of devotion. THAT's America!  So let's not be doing this and let's return to "your religion is private". Stop being so aggro. Got it? Okay, OK? 

Oklahoma attorney general says state schools superintendent cannot mandate students watch prayer video

This dovetails very well with my long-held overly reasonable belief that we need to stop with the "In God We Trust" nonsense everwhere, certainly as our American motto, and return to our original, "Out of Many, One" (E Pluribus Unum), for what is truly inclusive and doesn't lead to abuse of others. As we see today. As we see in these anti-"other people" movements by the Right. I don't want to get down against the religious. I want them to have their lives. Just as the rest of us want to.

Here are several key points one can make on these issues of being anti-LGBTQ+:

Diversity and Inclusion for LGBTQ+ individuals and workers are an integral part of society, and their diverse perspectives, talents, and contributions enrich our communities. Media representation and legal protections enable LGBTQ+ individuals to be recognized, respected, and included, fostering a more inclusive and accepting society for everyone.

1. Human Rights: LGBTQ+ rights are human rights. Every person deserves to be treated with dignity, equality, and fairness, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression. Discrimination and erasure based on these factors undermine the fundamental principles of human rights and deny LGBTQ+ individuals their inherent worth and value.
2. Mental Health and Well-being: LGBTQ+ individuals have historically faced higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression, anxiety, and suicidality, due to societal stigma and marginalization. Media representation and legal protections help reduce stigma and create a supportive environment, positively impacting the mental health and well-being of LGBTQ+ individuals.
3. Authentic Representation: Media plays a powerful role in shaping public perception and attitudes. By portraying diverse LGBTQ+ characters and storylines, media can challenge stereotypes, dispel myths, and promote empathy and understanding. Authentic representation allows LGBTQ+ individuals to see themselves reflected positively and helps foster greater acceptance and support within society.
4. Freedom and Autonomy: Everyone has the right to live their lives authentically, free from societal pressure and discrimination. Restricting LGBTQ+ representation and rights infringes upon their freedom of expression, personal autonomy, and the pursuit of happiness. Upholding these freedoms is crucial for a just and democratic society.
5. Social Progress: Over the years, societies worldwide have made significant progress in recognizing LGBTQ+ rights and equality. Rolling back these advancements would not only perpetuate injustice but also hinder societal progress as a whole. Inclusivity and acceptance lead to stronger and more vibrant communities where everyone can thrive.
6. Economic Benefits: Embracing diversity and inclusivity has economic benefits. Studies consistently demonstrate that LGBTQ+-friendly policies and environments attract and retain top talent, stimulate innovation, and contribute to economic growth. By embracing LGBTQ+ individuals, societies can harness their skills, talents, and purchasing power, resulting in a stronger and more prosperous nation.

It's essential to engage in respectful dialogue, providing well-reasoned arguments backed by evidence and personal stories to foster understanding and empathy in the face of opposition.

Cheers! Sláinte!

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

How Trump’s America Lacks the Respect of One Ancient Empire

How Trump’s America, how his MaGA (those fooled into following him and his sad orientation) Lacks the Respect of One Ancient Empire:
America, Falling Short of Ancient Rome.

For those who continue to disparage fellow Americans with terms juvenile Trump- like terms such as, "DemocRats", or "RepubliCants" (or worse) over political or lifestyle differences, consider why a more respectful approach is useful and even desired. 

I fell into this myself during the initial POTUS45 years (but I'm not falling for it in the POTUS47 years, no matter how bizarre and embarrassing it will be), as I’ve come to realize how divisive and counterproductive it is. I will not aid Donald Trump in his dividing America for his power and pleasures. 
However, we were being seriously abused during POTUS45 administration and we were greatly disrespected by the holder of our highest office. A man who grifts Americans at every opportunity and has done so for much of his life.
Trump, and those like him, often choose to malign those who disagree with them in the most juvenile of ways, much to the delight of MaGA followers. This kind of rhetoric merely deepens our divides and does us no good. 
Yes, we should always refer to our POTUS as Mr. Whomeever or Pres. Whomever. However Donald Trump has already had one term where he abused and disrespected OUR White House, the Oval Office, and the Office of President. I'm not sure he really does deserve respect anymore with his 34 felony convictions and enough of America deluded into thinking anything about him is a good idea. That being said...
Now more than ever, we really do need to come together, despite our differences, and build a stronger, united country. Regardless how much power in divisions gives Donald Trump ever more power.

Roman society had a complex relationship with respect, honor, and decorum, especially among the upper classes. While public discourse was often heated and could be quite blunt, Romans valued dignitas (personal dignity) and auctoritas (personal authority), especially in public settings. Disparaging fellow citizens with crude or immature language would have reflected poorly on the speaker, rather than on those being insulted. 

From: What Role Did Women Play in Ancient Rome?

For example:
Social Disapproval: In Roman society, acting without respect for others' dignity could diminish one’s social standing and respectability. A person engaging in petty insults or crude behavior would likely face social disapproval, especially from peers and people of higher status. Romans prided themselves on their ability to argue logically and forcefully, so insults were generally seen as a loss of self-control and dignity.
Public Shame: In some cases, public shaming was used to correct behaviors deemed unbecoming. If a citizen publicly insulted another without just cause or if they acted out of line with Roman values, they could be openly criticized in assemblies or by fellow citizens. Roman senators, for instance, were known to verbally reprimand others for behavior that reflected poorly on Roman ideals.
Political and Legal Repercussions: Romans also had laws against actions deemed harmful to public harmony, such as seditio (incitement of discord). In extreme cases, if a person’s behavior caused public disorder or was seen as damaging to the state's stability, they could face legal consequences, even exile.
The Roman emphasis on civility in public debate underscores that, although they were no strangers to strong rhetoric, they saw petty insults as unworthy of serious citizens, especially leaders. While insults and invective were part of Roman oratory, the quality of argumentation often distinguished the respectable from the crass, as Romans held their public figures to high standards of composure and respect.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Trump: Master of Chaos, Not Strategy. Why?

Donald Trump's cognitive and decision-making style has often been described as reactive, impulsive, and focused on immediate results rather than long-term strategy or careful analysis. 

2017  Vanity Fair cover

Quick blast from the past in 2017, Vanity Fair's article that relates to some things I won't cover here but have in-depth for years on Murdockinations.com:

Is Trump’s Chaos Tornado a Move From the Kremlin’s Playbook?

"It’s terrifying to think that the Trump administration is simply winging it, in a swirl of lies, contradictions, and Twitter rants. A scarier possibility is that there is, in fact, a plan, taken straight from Putin 101."

In a 2004 CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer, Donald Trump stated that the economy tends to do better under Democratic administrations than Republican ones. During the discussion, Trump mentioned that, after observing the economy over the years, he believed it performed better under Democrats. This was before his presidency, at a time when he was more publicly aligned with figures like Hillary and Bill Clinton​.

Moving on...

His approach seems to prioritize personal gain, power, and dominance, which can sometimes manifest as a "one-dimensional" or narrow focus on short-term objectives. This style contrasts with what you might expect from a traditional businessman or a leader in a complex role like the President, where nuanced decision-making and the ability to connect various issues are crucial.

Some key factors that influence this way of thinking could be:

1. Transactional Mindset: Trump's business career was often based on real estate deals, branding, and leveraging his public persona. This focus on transactional thinking—getting a deal done or making an immediate impact—can often seem short-sighted or disconnected from broader contexts.

2. Resistant to Complex Planning: Trump's leadership style as President, especially in terms of policy and governance, often appeared chaotic and unstructured. His preference for simple solutions, dismissing expert advice, and working off instinct, rather than collaborating or formulating long-term strategies, suggests a tendency to operate with limited breadth.

3. Pattern of Disruption and Conflict: His history of creating conflict, whether in business negotiations, media interactions, or political settings, might be a strategy for dominating a situation rather than carefully building sustainable solutions. This aligns with your description of "throwing things out to see what works," which could also be seen as a strategy for maintaining control by keeping opponents off-balance.

4. Emotional and Reactive Decision-Making: Trump's actions often seem more influenced by emotional impulses—ego, anger, or personal vendettas—rather than a rational, strategic thought process that considers multiple dimensions of a situation. This reactive style of thinking is seen when he doubles down on controversial statements or decisions rather than seeking compromise or reflective analysis.

Overall, Trump's cognitive style might be best understood as operating in a limited, one-dimensional manner that focuses on immediate goals, often at the expense of broader strategic vision or long-term planning. This has been a source of criticism, particularly in his political career, where the ability to connect dots across different issues and build coherent, consistent strategies is critical.

The terminology that would best describe Donald Trump's cognitive and decision-making style includes several psychological and behavioral terms, as well as concepts from leadership and management theories. Here are some key terms that fit:

1. Transactional Thinking: This refers to a mindset focused on immediate exchanges and outcomes, often with little regard for long-term consequences or deeper analysis. In business, it's about making deals and focusing on short-term gains rather than strategic planning.

2. Impulsive/Reactive Decision-Making: This describes a tendency to make decisions quickly, often without deep thought or consideration of the broader consequences. It’s marked by immediate responses to situations, rather than measured or deliberate planning.

3. Narcissistic Leadership: A leadership style driven by self-interest, often characterized by a focus on power, admiration, and control. This style tends to disregard broader or more complex views in favor of personal desires and immediate rewards.

4. Management by Crisis: This term refers to a leadership style where the leader reacts to issues as they arise rather than preventing them through proactive, long-term planning. In such an approach, crises are handled in an ad-hoc manner without a comprehensive strategy.

5. Autocratic Leadership: This is a leadership style where decisions are made by a single individual without seeking input from others. It can often lead to quick, top-down decisions that prioritize the leader's perspective over collaboration or broader input.

6. Short-Term Focus: This refers to a tendency to prioritize immediate gains or outcomes over longer-term objectives. It often results in decisions that lack sustainability or long-term strategic vision.

7. Reductionist Thinking: This is a way of thinking that simplifies complex issues into overly basic or one-dimensional solutions. It often ignores nuances and broader contexts, focusing on surface-level issues or immediate problems.

8. Cognitive Simplification: A term that could describe a tendency to simplify complex issues, focusing on clear, direct solutions that don't require deeper thought or understanding. This leads to decisions that appear simplistic or disconnected from reality.

9. Reactive Leadership: This style involves reacting to external events and pressures rather than proactively shaping the course of action. It can lead to erratic decision-making and an inability to manage long-term goals effectively.

These terms together describe a leadership and cognitive style that is often seen as unstructured, reactive, and focused on immediate, personal gain, without the depth of strategic planning or complex thinking that might be expected of a business leader or a political figure in high office.

Sound versy Republican from what we've seen in recent decades.

The cognitive and decision-making style described can align with certain trends observed in the broader Republican political and business cultures in recent decades. The characteristics of transactional thinking, impulsive decision-making, and short-term focus have often been prominent in the rhetoric and behavior of some right-wing figures, especially in business and politics. There are a few reasons why this pattern might be more noticeable in the Republican party:

1. Focus on Individualism and Power: Republican ideology, particularly in recent years, has often championed individualism, personal responsibility, and the pursuit of self-interest. This can manifest in leadership styles that prioritize personal power and immediate results, rather than collective decision-making or long-term planning for societal benefit.

2. Populist Movements: In the era of figures like Trump, the Republican Party has increasingly leaned into populist rhetoric, which tends to favor strong, decisive leaders who claim to speak directly to the will of the people, often bypassing traditional political norms or expert advice. This can foster a more reactionary, conflict-driven leadership style, where bold statements and actions are favored over nuanced, thoughtful solutions.

3. Emphasis on Business Acumen Over Governance: Many Republican leaders, especially in the past several decades, have touted business experience as a qualification for public office, assuming that skills in deal-making, competition, and growth can translate into effective governance. However, these skills often prioritize immediate results or profitability rather than addressing the complexities of public policy and governance, leading to transactional and sometimes chaotic decision-making.

4. Anti-Intellectualism: A strand of anti-intellectualism has been part of the Republican Party for some time, particularly when it comes to science, education, and expert opinion. This skepticism of expertise can foster a leadership style that relies more on gut instinct, emotional appeals, and "common sense" rather than informed decision-making.

5. Conflict as a Strategy: Over the past few decades, many Republicans have increasingly relied on conflict-driven rhetoric as a means of galvanizing their base. This can often create a leadership dynamic in which creating division and confrontation becomes the primary tactic to maintain power or distract from more complex issues, aligning with a more reactive and short-term style.

6. Deregulation and Short-Term Economic Gains: Republican economic policies have often focused on deregulation and reducing the role of government in business, prioritizing immediate economic benefits over long-term social or environmental consequences. This approach mirrors the idea of focusing on short-term transactional outcomes rather than strategic long-term planning.

In summary, the style of leadership and decision-making seen in Donald Trump can certainly be reflective of broader trends within the Republican Party, especially in its more populist and business-oriented factions. 

These traits—impulsivity, short-term focus, and a preference for conflict and personal power—are in many ways part of a political and ideological evolution that has increasingly shaped the GOP in recent decades.

This is not an American style of governing. Where would this naturally end up? What's the purpose? What's the endgame for Trump? And his GOP?

This leadership style—impulsive, transactional, and conflict-driven—can easily fit into an authoritarian path forward in several key ways. Almost like it is what is planned. Here’s how it connects:

1. Centralization of Power: Trump’s one-dimensional, reactive decision-making places authority in the hands of a single, dominant figure rather than promoting democratic processes or collaborative decision-making. This mirrors the way authoritarian regimes often centralize power in a single leader or a small group. By focusing on immediate control and power, Trump’s style diminishes the need for checks and balances or broad consultation.

2. Disregard for Institutions: Authoritarian leaders typically operate outside or in direct opposition to established democratic norms and institutions. Trump has shown a disregard for established norms (e.g., undermining the judiciary, dismissing expert advice, challenging electoral processes) and has frequently attacked the media, the intelligence community, and other watchdogs. This aligns with the destabilizing, “us vs. them” approach that is often a feature of authoritarianism, where the leader’s personal power supersedes the functionality of democratic institutions.

3. Conflict as a Tool: Authoritarian leaders often use conflict—whether manufactured or exaggerated—as a way to rally their base, silence critics, and maintain a sense of control. Trump’s emphasis on division, fear-mongering, and scapegoating (often targeting marginalized groups, the media, or political opponents) keeps people focused on "enemies" rather than engaging with complex issues. This technique is frequently used by authoritarian leaders to consolidate power and distract from governance or policy failures.

4. Populist Rhetoric and Cult of Personality: Authoritarian leaders often build a cult of personality, positioning themselves as the embodiment of the nation’s will, while presenting themselves as outsiders who can solve problems where traditional politicians have failed. Trump has cultivated this image, often speaking directly to his base, appealing to populist sentiments, and portraying himself as the only one who can "drain the swamp" or restore America’s greatness. This populist rhetoric is key to advancing an authoritarian agenda, as it aligns the leader’s interests with the will of the people, making any dissent seem illegitimate.

5. Erosion of Democratic Norms: An authoritarian path forward often involves gradually eroding democratic norms—particularly through undermining the role of the media, attacking opposition parties, and normalizing the rejection of democratic processes (e.g., questioning election results, challenging peaceful transfers of power). Trump’s rhetoric and actions, particularly around the 2020 election and his refusal to concede, reflect a disdain for democratic processes, opening the door for more authoritarian tendencies.

6. Use of Fear and Nationalism: Trump often relies on nationalist, fear-based rhetoric to galvanize his supporters, framing challenges in terms of existential threats to the nation’s survival. This aligns with the authoritarian tactic of using fear (whether from external or internal enemies) to justify the concentration of power and the restriction of freedoms. Nationalism often plays a pivotal role in authoritarian movements by appealing to a common identity that justifies control over dissent.

7. Lack of Long-Term Planning: The short-term, transactional thinking you described can be seen as a feature of authoritarian governance. While authoritarian leaders may appear to act decisively and boldly in the short term, they often lack long-term, sustainable plans. The chaos and unpredictability of such leadership can serve to create a power vacuum that consolidates more control into the hands of the leader, reducing accountability and oversight.

In summary, Trump's leadership style and approach to governance align with authoritarian tendencies by centralizing power, undermining democratic institutions, using conflict to maintain control, cultivating a cult of personality, and eroding democratic norms. 

This kind of leadership paves the way for a more authoritarian path by diminishing the importance of institutions, checks and balances, and long-term strategic planning in favor of personal power and immediate results.

Compiled with aid from ChatGPT

The Kremlin Connection: Does Trump After All Owe to Russian Backers?

Russia. Trump. What now?

Many Americans HAVE found convicted felon, adjudicated sex abuser, malignant narcissist/pathological liar, and career criminal, (twice imperfectly impeached, 30,000+ lies told to American citizens as POTUS45), Donald Trump... winning the 2024 election, BEING curious, if not, SEVERELY Bizarre.

Matt Gaetz for AG? Then he resigned Congress. Well, on that latter part, Yay!

Some very bizarre Trump nominations for his "administration". Look, you CAN put unqualified or even stupid people in charge, but that burdens all those beneath them. Our government deserves better. As do we all.

Janes: North Korea - The hardest OSINT environment? (audio 46mins)

Oh, by the way...Blast from the past...2023:

Medvedev suggests that Elon Musk launch campaign to amend US Constitution

Many of us feel there is something untoward going on, but we can't put our fingers on it. DOJ, SCOTUS and Congress have repeatedly let America down on curbing or putting away a convicted criminal, twice impeached (crippled by the MaGA GOP as it was), Donald Trump. Autocracy and autocratic methodology seems to have a maze-like path through democracy toward crumbling it from the inside, deluding those who have traditionally and historically stood against it (like the GOP, the once and no longer "Grand Old Party").

We will find out what happened years, or decades later. But we're in dire straits, NOW.

So then, what is this?

From Kefkaroth Sephka on "X" (Elon's infected Twitter)

Kefkaroth Sephka with 88 followers, is an odd account. Russian disinfo? Or sharing something we should know?

From Kefkaroth Sephka on "X"

Interesting?

From Kefkaroth Sephka on "X"

OK, so what the hell does all that mean?

Analysis of Russian presidential aide and Chairman or the Russian Maritime Collegium Nikolai Patrushev said Trump owes after winning the US elections.

Patrushev: "Trump relied on forces to which he has obligations."

Speaking with the Kommersant newspaper, Nikolai Patrushev said:

"And as a responsible person, he will be obliged to fulfill them."

Which is a compliment in rhetoric that indicates he's not critiquing or denigrating Trump, but reminding him, praising him. Thus he's talking about Russian influence, not anti-Russian American, or world power influences aligned against Russia. 

This is disturbing.

What is Kommersant? Kommersant (Коммерсантъ) is a prominent Russian newspaper known for its in-depth reporting on business, politics, and international affairs. It was founded in 1989 and is one of Russia’s oldest and most respected private publications. Kommersant is well-regarded for its coverage of the Russian government and global events and is considered to have a relatively balanced perspective, though it operates under certain constraints common to Russian media. The paper publishes a wide array of content, including investigative journalism, economic reports, political analysis, and interviews with Russian and international figures. Its tone and quality are often comparable to major Western business and political publications.

Nikolai Patrushev, Secretary of Russia's Security Council, recent statement that Donald Trump owes "obligations" to certain "forces" after his 2024 U.S. election victory are widely seen as suggesting that Trump's success was bolstered by influential groups within the U.S. to which he might feel indebted. This implication aligns with Russian critiques of American politics, particularly around the influence of elite or interest groups shaping U.S. policy.

However, Patrushev did not specify which "forces" he was referring to, leaving room for speculation and interpretation, particularly among analysts who often interpret these statements as part of Russia's broader narrative criticizing Western democracies and their leadership dynamics. Patrushev has frequently suggested that U.S. leaders, including Trump, are beholden to powerful domestic influences, which he views as detrimental to global stability.

For further context on this statement and how it fits into Russia's ongoing critique of the U.S., see sources like EADaily, The New Republic, and others reporting on recent Russian official statements.

How is this not about Russian forces helping Trump get elected?

We know Putin finds Trump as many of us do with reality in our eyes and ears as a cheap criminal who sows chaos and corrupts all he comes into contact with. But Putin loves to sow chaos in Western democracies. It aids his efforts in a force multiply dynamic.

Patrushev’s comments did not specifically state that Russian forces assisted Trump in getting elected in 2024, but rather vaguely suggested that Trump “relied on forces” and now has “obligations” to them. This phrase could be interpreted in different ways, but Patrushev's language aligns with a broader Russian critique of American political dynamics, implying that Trump, like other U.S. leaders, may owe favors to influential groups within the U.S. itself.

To be clear, Russian officials often frame U.S. politics as heavily influenced by powerful domestic interests—be it corporate elites, political lobbies, or other internal actors. By using the term “forces,” Patrushev may be pointing toward these internal influences rather than suggesting Russian intervention. This is consistent with Russia's recent narrative, which downplays its own role in U.S. elections while casting doubt on the independence of American leaders due to their reliance on domestic power groups​.

Without a direct accusation or evidence, Patrushev’s comments remain speculative. Or do they? While this could provoke interpretations about Russian interference, the statement’s ambiguity suggests it’s more a part of Russia’s rhetorical stance rather than an admission of direct involvement.

But this also sounds very much like a mafia-style, indirect threat which would also fit Russian government style.

Patrushev’s language can also and easily be interpreted as carrying an implicit, even “mafia-style” tone, something often observed in Russian diplomatic rhetoric. Russian officials sometimes use vague but pointed language, leaving their statements open to interpretation while signaling a message that may seem menacing or suggestive of influence. In this case, Patrushev’s comment that Trump “relied on forces” to whom he “has obligations” sounds intentionally ambiguous, which leaves room for multiple interpretations, including one that hints at an indirect warning.

This style aligns with broader Russian messaging that often critiques Western politics as being influenced by powerful interests, while subtly implying that Russian knowledge of such influence could affect future relations. Patrushev’s comments might be designed to foster uncertainty about who holds sway over U.S. leaders like Trump, while also subtly conveying that Russia has insight—and perhaps leverage—regarding these dynamics.

That's very Russian from a country who are experts in long-term efforts against their enemies, and in cloaking reality in obfuscation and distraction.

Russian officials have used similar language in the past to suggest that Western leaders are not fully autonomous and may owe their positions to certain interest groups, subtly casting doubt on their independence. This rhetorical style can serve multiple functions: distancing Russia from accusations of interference, casting aspersions on Western political systems, and creating a sense of strategic ambiguity that can be read as a veiled warning or signal to other nations.

In this case, it’s reasonable to view Patrushev’s statements as potentially serving these dual purposes: as part of a long-standing critique of U.S. politics and as a reminder of Russian awareness and potential influence in global affairs​.

Telling the Kommersant newspaper, Nikolai Patrushev said:

"And as a responsible person, he will be oblighed to fulfill them", which is a compliment in rhetoric that indicates he's not critiquing Trump, but praising him. Thus he's talking about Russian influence, not anti-Russian American or world power influences aligned against Russia. 

This is disturbing.

The additional context from Patrushev’s statement to Kommersant—that Trump, “as a responsible person, will be obliged to fulfill” his obligations—does indeed shift the tone. Instead of sounding critical or cautionary, this phrasing can be read as supportive, suggesting that Trump’s responsibilities are aligned with groups Patrushev views favorably. Such language could imply Russian influence or expectations of Trump, especially if Patrushev is indicating he trusts Trump to fulfill obligations that benefit Russian interests or are aligned with Russia’s geopolitical goals.

This interpretation aligns with a broader Russian diplomatic approach that often uses indirect language to signal shared interests or mutual understanding with foreign leaders. If Patrushev is indeed hinting at Trump being "obliged" to Russia or Russia-aligned groups, it would reflect a complex dynamic. 

While Russia has officially denied interference in U.S. elections, Russian officials have sometimes hinted at understanding or even approval of Trump’s policy directions that align with Russian interests, such as questioning NATO’s role or opposing certain sanctions. We know, American intelligence community has clearly stated that Russia, China, and Iran specifically have interfered in our 2024 election in various ways.

• As the U.S. election nears, Russia, Iran and China step up influence efforts
• FBI reports new hoax videos, after warnings that Russia is trying to undermine election

These statements certainly could be disturbing, as they imply a confidence that Trump, even as a U.S. president, might prioritize commitments aligned with Russian interests. Such confidence could be interpreted as Russia expecting that Trump’s actions will favor or accommodate Russia if he follows through on these so-called “obligations.” This perception can lead to concerns about foreign influence on U.S. leadership, especially given the ambiguous but suggestive rhetoric Patrushev employs​.

Buckle up America. Four more years of the nightmare grifter in the White House and remember...

We did this to ourselves!

Looking for hope? Jon Stewart on The Daily Show: "This isn't forever."

Cheers! Sláinte!

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

In the One Act Play, "Denude", Legacy and War Lay Bare the Struggle for Redemption

I came across a 2022 film, "Foxhole", it was pretty intriguing and entertaining. Where Over 36 hours in three different wars, a small group of soldiers grapples with mortality, futility, and an increasingly volatile combat situation. It reminded me of my play on a similar concept.

Perhaps I should have named my play that. But, perhaps not. Allow me to explain. Back in 1983 while at Western Washington University, I wrote a play about two soldiers in a foxhole (with supernatural overtones). It takes place between three very different wars: Vietnam, WWII, and the War of 1812, in that order.

Two soldiers, Trappist and Menses, are stuck in a foxhole during a war. Trappist tries to engage Menses in conversation, offering him some rations of fruitcake and peaches, but Menses is agitated and angry about having been sent there. The tension between them rises as they face the threat of enemy fire. Trappist tries to calm Menses, but the situation intensifies until Menses, in a fit of panic, ends up shooting and killing Trappist.

After Trappist's death, a surreal sequence occurs where Trappist appears as a ghost, revealing to Menses that they've been intertwined through multiple lives, with Menses repeatedly being the cause of Trappist's death in various previous wars. Trappist implies a cycle of reincarnation and their eternal connection.

Eventually, as Menses faces the brink of death himself, Trappist guides him into an ethereal realm, indicating they're both on the verge of departing. The play ends with Menses acknowledging his own death and Trappist urging him to follow into the afterlife, hinting at a reason to celebrate despite their demise.

How does that tie in with one's consideration of themself and their ancestors who served in those previous wars?

A person's understanding of their self-identity, as well as their view of their family lineage, can be deeply influenced by the legacy of ancestors who served in past wars like the War of 1812, WWII, and the Vietnam War. This connection to the past often impacts how they view duty, patriotism, resilience, and their place within their nation's history.

Here’s how these aspects might shape someone's perception of themselves in the context of these wars:

1. Sense of Duty and Patriotism

• If someone has ancestors who served in one or more of these wars, they may feel a heightened sense of duty or responsibility to carry on a family legacy of service and sacrifice. This can manifest as a strong patriotic sentiment, where they view their own life in the context of defending and upholding the values for which their ancestors fought.
• Knowing that a family member faced hardship and danger to protect sovereignty and national interests can deepen a person’s respect for their country and motivate them to contribute in their own way, whether through military service, civic engagement, or simply by embodying values like courage and dedication.

2. Personal Identity and Self-Worth

• The knowledge of an ancestor’s bravery, resilience, or sacrifices in wartime can enhance a person’s sense of self-worth. They may view these traits as part of their family identity, inspiring them to persevere through their challenges and to embody the resilience displayed by previous generations.
• For instance, a descendant of a WWII veteran might take pride in knowing their family contributed to defeating fascism and defending freedom on a global scale. Similarly, a descendant of a Vietnam War veteran might carry an understanding of the complexities of war, including the struggles soldiers face during and after service.

3. Connection to Broader Historical Themes

• People often feel a connection to history through their family stories, seeing their ancestors' participation as part of a larger narrative about freedom, justice, or ideological conflict. This sense of continuity with the past can lead to a deeper appreciation of the challenges their ancestors faced and how those challenges are relevant today.
• For example, understanding that an ancestor fought to defend American sovereignty in the War of 1812 might give someone a stronger appreciation for independence and self-determination. Learning about a WWII veteran ancestor might evoke a sense of responsibility to stand against injustice, while a Vietnam veteran ancestor might prompt a deeper understanding of the costs of war and the importance of questioning authority.

4. Reflection on Service and Sacrifice Across Generations

• For some, having family members who served in different wars with varied goals—protecting sovereignty, fighting ideologies, or containing threats—can highlight the changing nature of patriotism and service. It may lead them to reflect on what service means today, especially in a world with new and different types of challenges.
• They may also see each generation’s service as a testament to their family’s ongoing commitment to the values they hold dear, like bravery and sacrifice. This perspective often strengthens family bonds, fostering a sense of pride and a commitment to carry on those values, even if not through military service.

5. Ethical and Moral Reflection

• A person's view of their ancestors’ service can also involve ethical considerations, especially in wars like Vietnam, which raised questions about the morality of conflict and governmental decisions. Descendants of Vietnam veterans, in particular, may grapple with the moral complexity of that war, leading to nuanced views on service, authority, and foreign policy.
• This ethical reflection may result in a more complex form of patriotism, one that respects the sacrifices made by family members but also acknowledges the lessons learned from the consequences of these wars. Such reflections can prompt a desire for peace and responsible leadership, influencing the descendant's choices and beliefs.

In essence, an individual who is aware of their ancestors' service in these wars might see themselves as part of a continuum—a living link in a chain of history where ideals, sacrifices, and national struggles persist across generations. This connection can provide a foundation for their identity, values, and choices, blending personal pride with the lessons and legacies of their family's past.

The story in the play weaves together themes of fate, trauma, and the eternal bonds forged in conflict, all while exploring complex questions of identity and guilt. Here are some key interpretations and symbolic meanings in the context of the information provided:

1. Cycles of War and Trauma

• The recurring deaths of Trappist at the hands of Menses across multiple lifetimes suggest that the two are caught in a cycle of violence and tragedy. This echoes the generational repetition of war itself, where similar patterns of suffering and sacrifice recur across different conflicts and eras. Just as descendants of soldiers might see the same themes—sovereignty, ideology, and national duty—play out repeatedly, Menses and Trappist are symbols of those individuals trapped in an endless loop of conflict, with trauma continually passed down.
• Menses’s agitation reflects the disillusionment soldiers often feel in wartime, questioning the reasons behind their deployment. His panic mirrors the moral struggles many soldiers face when their sense of duty clashes with the reality of violence. Trappist’s calm and offering of food—fruitcake and peaches, items often shared as comforts in hard times—may represent an attempt to find humanity and shared purpose amid the chaos of war.

2. Reincarnation and Generational Karma

• The cycle of reincarnation between Trappist and Menses hints at karma, suggesting that Menses is doomed to confront and ultimately reconcile with his violent tendencies across lifetimes. This ties to the idea that wars, like personal conflicts, are cycles that humanity struggles to break free from.
• Their intertwined lives may serve as a metaphor for how each generation inherits the unresolved conflicts and traumas of the last. The idea that Menses is repeatedly responsible for Trappist’s death could represent how individuals, knowingly or unknowingly, perpetuate historical violence and trauma. Only by confronting and understanding this pattern can they hope to transcend it, symbolized by Menses’s journey into the afterlife guided by Trappist.

3. Acceptance of Mortality and Transformation

• As Menses faces his death with Trappist guiding him, there’s a shift from violence to acceptance. Trappist's ghostly presence serves as a reminder that death does not end their connection; rather, it offers a chance to confront their history and possibly find peace. This moment of acceptance transforms death from a feared enemy into a passage to a new understanding.
• The final scene, where Trappist urges Menses to "celebrate" despite their demise, could be interpreted as an embrace of life’s cycles, including the ending of those cycles. In acknowledging his own death, Menses may be symbolically breaking the pattern, suggesting that the only way to escape the violence of reincarnation is through acceptance and transcendence.

4. The Dual Nature of War as Both Binding and Destructive

• The foxhole setting forces the two characters into a close and claustrophobic bond, highlighting how war can create intense relationships under life-threatening circumstances. Trappist and Menses are bound by shared danger, but it also becomes their undoing. This dynamic reflects how soldiers in various wars develop lifelong connections with comrades, yet these relationships can be strained or tragically severed by violence.
• The ghostly revelation of their past lives serves as a metaphor for the shared traumas soldiers carry through life, as well as across generations. Each generation’s unresolved trauma perpetuates cycles of violence and suffering, a reminder that without healing, past conflicts may continue to haunt the present.

5. Celebrating Release and Finding Meaning in Tragedy

• The story’s ending implies that through death, Menses and Trappist might finally break their pattern. Their celebration may signify a release from the karmic ties of their past, freeing them from repeating this violent cycle in the future.
• This celebration can also be seen as a tribute to the perseverance and resilience of those who endured trauma in war. Despite the violence, the connection between the two characters represents a testament to shared humanity, a poignant reminder of the relationships and sacrifices made in the most challenging circumstances.

In sum, the story of Trappist and Menses speaks to the profound and often tragic connections forged in wartime. It reflects on how the legacies of past conflicts live on within individuals, affecting identity and behavior across generations. Their journey through death and reincarnation suggests that finding peace may require acknowledging and accepting past violence, ultimately leading to release and transformation.

But, what about that weird title: "Denude"?

The title Denude perfectly captures the play's core themes by suggesting a stripping away of layers, exposing raw truths, vulnerabilities, and the essence of each character beyond the facade of duty or anger. Here’s how it resonates with the play’s elements:

1. Stripping Down to Humanity: In the intense, close confines of the foxhole, the two soldiers are forced to confront not only the external war but also their own fears, beliefs, and mortality. Denude suggests this process of laying bare, as Trappist and Menses shed the societal and psychological armor they carry as soldiers. This reveals their raw humanity, flaws, and connections that transcend a single lifetime.

2. Revealing Cycles of Trauma and Violence: The title reflects the peeling back of time itself, exposing the repetitive cycles of conflict that these characters—and by extension, humanity—are trapped in. Through the surreal revelation of their reincarnation, Denude conveys how, stripped of superficial identities, they are left with only the core of their unresolved karmic bond.

3. Ancestral and Emotional Exposure: The play tackles heavy themes of inherited trauma and the weight of ancestral conflicts. Denude speaks to the exposure of these deep-seated wounds that each character carries, inviting audiences to consider the ways in which war and violence strip away innocence and leave behind scars that ripple through generations.

4. A Journey Toward Redemption and Truth: Finally, the act of “denuding” hints at a spiritual or existential uncovering—a stripping away of the cycles of violence until only truth remains. As Trappist leads Menses toward acceptance and, ultimately, peace, the title suggests a process of shedding illusions, perhaps even ego, to confront and understand their shared history.

Denude thus encapsulates themes of revelation, vulnerability, and the journey toward a profound understanding of self and others, central to the play’s exploration of reincarnation, war, and redemption.

So should I have titled it "Foxhole"? Maybe, maybe not. Is the play any good? Yeah, I think so. It's also, from a stage manager's and director's perspective, kind of a cool, and versatile play. And a bit spooky in the performance, making it interesting to act in.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Why Protect Ukraine? Why Not Ask, Why Protect Yourself?

From Nagy Sándor off of Facebook (cleaned up from original, for clarity).

For those who ask...

Why Ukraine Matters?

Ukraine is one of the largest countries in Europe, with an area of 603,548 square kilometers and a population of approximately 44.13 million (as of 2020).

Ukraine’s Key Natural Resources:

• Uranium Reserves: Largest in Europe.
• Titanium Reserves: 2nd in Europe, 10th globally.
• Manganese Ore Reserves: 2nd in the world, with 2.3 billion tonnes, accounting for 12% of global reserves.
• Iron Ore Reserves: 2nd largest globally, with 30 billion tonnes.
• Mercury Ore Reserves: 2nd in Europe.
• Natural Gas Reserves: 3rd in Europe, 13th globally, with 22 trillion cubic meters.
• Coal Reserves: 7th in the world, with 33.9 billion tonnes.
• Overall Value of Natural Resources: 4th in the world.

Ukraine’s Agricultural Importance:

• Ploughed Land: Largest in Europe.
• Black Soil (Chernozem): 3rd in the world, making up 25% of the global supply.
• Sunflower & Sunflower Oil: Largest exporter in the world.
• Barley: 2nd in production globally, 4th in exports.
• Maize: 3rd largest producer and 4th largest exporter.
• Potatoes: 4th largest producer.
• Rye: 5th largest producer.
• Honey: 5th largest producer globally, with 75,000 tonnes.
• Wheat: 8th largest exporter in the world.
• Eggs: 9th largest producer.
• Cheese: 16th largest exporter.

Ukraine can meet the food needs of up to 600 million people.

Ukraine’s Industrial Strength:

• Ammonia Production: Largest in Europe.
• Natural Gas Pipeline System: 2nd largest in Europe, 4th globally.
• Nuclear Power: 3rd in Europe, 8th globally in installed capacity.
• Railway Network: 3rd in Europe, 11th globally, spanning 21,700 km.
• Manufacturing of Locating Equipment: 3rd in the world, after the United States and France.
• Iron Exports: 3rd largest globally.
• Turbine Export: 4th largest globally.
• Rocket Launcher Manufacturing: 4th largest globally.
• Clay Exports: 4th largest globally.
• Titanium Exports: 4th largest globally.
• Ore & Concentrates Exports: 8th largest globally.
• Industrial Protective Products Exports: 9th largest globally.
• Steel Production: 10th largest globally, producing 32.4 million tonnes.

It gets down to this: 

Europe and America didn't want to protect Poland when Hitler invaded. 

That, was a mistake.

You do not placate such as  Hitler, Putin...or Trump.

You stand against them. 

You stand up for humanity. 

You do not isolate. Why?

Because it never ends well. You can't see what's going on. You can't protect yourself, or others. You allow those with your and other's best interests to make those their best interests.

Wake up, face your troubles, fight back...for yourself and others. Before it's too late and your fighting only for yourself and yours, and you're losing.

Tyranny of the Majority: Why Gerrymandering and the Electoral College Don't Serve Democracy

Isn't Donald Trump winning the popular vote exactly the reason for the Electoral College to begin with?

Where Did the Term “Gerrymander” Come From?

While the Electoral College was originally designed to balance the interests of smaller and larger states and to prevent more populated areas from having too much influence over the selection of the president, its purpose was to ensure that all states, regardless of population size, would have a meaningful role in the election process. This system means that winning the popular vote nationwide doesn't always guarantee a candidate the presidency; instead, a candidate must secure enough electoral votes by winning individual states.

In recent years, some argue the Electoral College does not fully represent the popular vote, especially when a candidate wins the Electoral College but loses the popular vote. Others see it as a way to maintain state representation and avoid a scenario where only high-population areas dominate election outcomes.

So what's the purpose of Gerrymandering in all this? Weren't the Framers concerned about a popularity vote?

The Framers were indeed concerned about a purely popular vote. They feared that direct democracy, where decisions are made directly by majority vote, could lead to what they called "the tyranny of the majority." This concern was partly why they created the Electoral College — to act as a buffer, giving each state a proportionate voice rather than allowing the most populous areas to entirely dictate election outcomes.

Gerrymandering, however, is a separate issue tied specifically to the drawing of congressional and state legislative districts, not to the Electoral College directly. Gerrymandering allows political parties in power to shape districts to favor their party, sometimes creating "safe" seats and minimizing competition. While the Electoral College itself isn't affected by Gerrymandering, gerrymandered districts influence the House of Representatives and, indirectly, political power within states.

Here's where it does relate, though: Gerrymandering can influence which party holds power at the state level, which can, in turn, influence presidential elections. For example, if one party controls a state's legislature due to Gerrymandering, they may enact voting laws that can affect voter turnout and electoral outcomes. Additionally, in extreme cases, Gerrymandering could impact the selection of electors if a state decides to allocate electoral votes by district (as done in Maine and Nebraska), though this is rare.

In short, while the Electoral College reflects the Framers' goal of balancing power among states, Gerrymandering represents a more modern manipulation of electoral influence within states, often intensifying partisan divides and making it more difficult for some votes to carry equal weight.

Gerrymandering is often seen as "democratically insane," as it distorts the principle of one person, one vote. The goal of democracy is to ensure that the will of the people is accurately reflected, but Gerrymandering manipulates district boundaries to favor a particular political party or group, undermining that principle. By shaping districts in ways that dilute opposition votes and concentrate supporters, it creates a skewed representation in Congress and state legislatures. This process can reduce competition, lower voter engagement, and ultimately result in elected officials who do not reflect the will of the majority.

As for the Electoral College, many argue that it has indeed become increasingly problematic, especially in recent years. The system was originally intended to balance the influence of smaller and larger states, but in practice, it can feel broken. For example, it’s possible for a candidate to lose the popular vote but still win the presidency, as happened in 2000 and 2016. This disconnect between the popular will and the electoral outcome has led to significant criticism, as people feel their votes may not have equal weight depending on where they live.

Critics argue that this makes the system less representative and that it disproportionately elevates the influence of swing states while ignoring others. It has also fueled calls for reform, including proposals to either abolish the Electoral College altogether in favor of a direct popular vote or to move toward a proportional allocation of electoral votes.

In both cases — Gerrymandering and the Electoral College — the frustration stems from a sense that the systems no longer serve their original democratic purposes effectively. They seem to disproportionately favor political elites or certain regions, creating a sense of unfairness and eroding trust in the democratic process. This has led to widespread calls for reform in both areas, though achieving such changes is a complicated and often contentious issue.

So what the hell was the purpose of Gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering is primarily for manipulating electoral district boundaries to favor a particular political party, group, or incumbent. A practice typically employed by the party in control of a state’s legislature to maximize their electoral advantage in future elections. Gerrymandering works by strategically drawing district lines to either "pack" voters from the opposing party into a few districts (thereby minimizing their influence in other districts) or "crack" their voters by spreading them across multiple districts to dilute their voting power.

The primary goals of Gerrymandering are:

Political advantage:

By manipulating district boundaries, political parties can create districts that favor their candidates or policies, ensuring they win a disproportionate number of seats compared to their actual support in the general population.

Incumbent protection:

Gerrymandering can be used to protect current officeholders by designing districts that favor their re-election prospects, reducing competition and increasing the chances of electoral success.

Party entrenchment:

In some cases, Gerrymandering aims to create long-lasting political dominance by designing districts that consistently favor one party over others, even if their overall support in the population is not as strong.

Weaken opposition power:

By splitting or concentrating opposing voters, Gerrymandering can prevent the opposition from winning a fair share of seats, even if they have significant overall support in the state.

Historically, Gerrymandering has been used in the U.S. since the early 19th century, and while its purpose is often to favor a political party, it has also been used in the past to manipulate ethnic or racial representation. For example, in some cases, districts were drawn in ways that diminished the voting power of minority groups. This practice, however, has been limited by legal rulings that aim to prevent racial Gerrymandering and ensure fair representation under the Voting Rights Act.

While Gerrymandering can provide short-term political gains for those in power, it's widely criticized for distorting democracy, leading to uncompetitive elections, reducing voter turnout, and fostering political polarization. Which seems reasonable to me. So why does it still exist?

I see no valid reason to offer ways in elections to support a ruling party as it aids "the tyranny of the majority."

Many critics of Gerrymandering do share concern that it contributes to "the tyranny of the majority." The idea behind a fair, representative democracy is that all voices — including those of minority groups — should be heard and have an equal opportunity to influence the political process. Gerrymandering undermines this by allowing those in power to manipulate district boundaries to entrench their dominance, often at the expense of true representation.

When Gerrymandering is used to favor one party, it creates a political system that isn't truly responsive to the will of the voters. Instead of districts being competitive and reflecting a broad range of political views, they become "safe" seats, where one party has an overwhelming advantage. This can lead to a lack of accountability, as politicians in these districts have little incentive to listen to the concerns of voters outside their base. It also limits voter choice, as some districts are designed to ensure a particular party will win no matter the actual vote.

Concerns about "the tyranny of the majority" is valid in the context of unchecked power. In gerrymandered districts, even if a majority of people in a state or region support a certain candidate or party, the way the lines are drawn can mean that minority views are systematically shut out. This can lead to a situation where a large portion of the population feels politically disenfranchised, knowing that their votes are less likely to make an impact.

In an ideal system, elections should reflect the will of the people in a fair and transparent way, without manipulation. Gerrymandering distorts that, turning elections into contests of political strategy rather than true reflection of public opinion. Some advocates for reform argue for independent commissions to draw district lines instead of leaving the power to political parties, aiming to create fairer, more representative electoral maps.

So why does Gerrymandering still exist? It seems ludicrous and contrary to the American citizen. It persists because it allows political parties to manipulate district boundaries to secure electoral advantages, protect incumbents, and maintain power. It thrives due to the control state legislatures have over redistricting, limited federal oversight, and legal challenges that often fail to address partisan Gerrymandering. 

Increased political polarization, voter apathy, and a long history of the practice also contribute to its continuation. While some states have implemented reforms, resistance from those benefiting from the system, along with legal and structural challenges, makes it difficult to eliminate Gerrymandering altogether.

One wonders if this was a primary concern, to get our elections under control, eliminate Gerrymandering by partisan groups lacking neutrality (districts DO need to be drawn after all), dark and big money in our elections has to go, Citizens United needs to go (a first sign if not others before it to indicate there was an increasing problem with the SCOTUS). The best case would be for all of us to pay for our elections, and have them go through a neutral and monitored governing body with no money going to any campaign. This would have to be a compartmentalized group, outside the reach of political or government. 

Both parties would be supplied advertising, ads, etc. While it would require taxes, sad how that frightens so many, it would finally clean up our elections, stop the abuse, and lead to more reality. This would lead to more bi-partisan work being done, with more good decisions bravely being offered, and in the end more good ideas being utilized.

I would offer we also need to get back to news as a "loss leader". Eliminate for-profit news. Social media, OpEds and entertainment news may well today prevent that. We may well be quite beyond saving this situation. Oddly, comedy news has been a boon in this area, often pointing out much of what no one else is willing to address.

A potential solution could involve a combination of publicly funded advertising and stricter regulations on media ownership and content:

Publicly Funded Advertising: 

Implement a system where all political candidates receive equal funding for advertising, reducing the influence of private money. This could be funded through a small tax, ensuring a level playing field.

Stricter Media Regulations: 

Enforce regulations that limit the concentration of media ownership and ensure diverse viewpoints are represented. This could help reduce the bias and sensationalism often seen in for-profit news.

Non-Profit News Organizations: 

Encourage the establishment of non-profit news organizations that prioritize public interest over profit. These organizations could receive government grants or tax incentives to support their operations.

Educational Campaigns: 

Launch educational campaigns to inform the public about media literacy and the importance of critical thinking. This could help people better understand and evaluate the information they consume.

Transparency in Advertising: 

Require full transparency in political advertising, including clear disclosure of funding sources. This could help voters make more informed decisions and reduce the impact of misleading ads.

Ultimately, the goal should be a system that ensures power is not concentrated in the hands of a few, whether through Gerrymandering, electoral manipulation, campaign coffers (greatly supplied by a few billionaires or soon, trillionaires), or other tactics. The health of OUR democracy relies on its ability to fairly represent all people, not just the majority, not just those in power.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT