Search DanilowEssays.com:

Danilow's sometimes daily blog - May 2016

 

05/24/2016 U.S. defines "moderate terrorists":

Disregard of the Syrian cease-fire and undertaking local massacres doesn't necessarily indicate extremism or objectionable terrorism. It appears that only the U.S. can determine whether or not a Syrian terrorist group is "moderate" or "extremist" after having it "vetted" by Saudi Arabians—whose leaders are Bush family friends [see Michael Moore's 2004 documentary Fahrenheit 9/11] and the nation which perhaps supported the 9/11 terrorists, most of whom were Saudis.

liberty's light

05/23/2016 no more Clintons [EVER], nor Trumps:

There appears little or no germane difference between Hillary and the Donald. Somehow character seems key. The nation's only reasonable hope is for Bernie Sanders to get the Democratic nomination.

Hillary's opportunistic bent has started offering her husband's purported expertise with the economy as added value were she to be elected—as if the man who championed NAFTA and "repeal" of Glass-Steagall is suddenly going to champion the financial interests of the common man. And surely the less-than-desirable forces surrounding Bill's corrupt administrations are bigger, stronger, more experienced, and anxiously awaiting a chance at another Clinton White House. Both Clinton's are inextirpable from the cohesive forces of big banks, big money, and their collective associated interests. Note that "Mr. Clinton's speeches [while his wife was serving as Secretary of State] included appearances in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Central America, Europe, Turkey, Thailand, Taiwan, India and the Cayman Islands" and "Sponsors of the speeches included some of the world's largest financial institutions, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, American Express and others, as well as major players in technology, energy, health care and media". If this is not enough to start you thinking about whether or not Hillary is the presidential material you desire, spend a little time with the Progressive Review's Clinton Scandals still highlighting some things most people have long forgotten. If your attention span is real short, don't miss The Clinton Legacy which is a compressed look at some Clinton corruption indicators. Now couple all that with her ill-advised poorly-crafted hawkish international stances and you can rest assured that under Hillary America's insane wars will continue and escalate with equally desirable results or worse case catastrophes. Further enervation of the constitution, including loss of personal freedoms and expansion of miltary intelligence powers over citizens, is likely to accelerate too. This brings us to Donald Trump.

The NRA endorsed Trump for President on May 20th. Surely this is in part payback for recent Republican support of the organization's agenda. In any case the NRA is a single-issue organization and Trump's stance on gun-control must seem more palatable than Hillary's at this juncture. The NRA would endorse any dictator holding a pro-private-gun-ownership stance and in this instance might have done exactly that. What Mr.Trump might do in public office remains to be seen but we do know that he is accustomed to dictating policy and seems to have little use for consensus. Likely he, like Hillary, would take federal expropriation of individual rights to the next level by an order of magnitude. One Huffington Post editor has noted him this way: "Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims—1.6 billion members of an entire religion—from entering the U.S.". Nothing there to argue with and that assessment puts him in much the same self-serving class as his potential female competition. It is doubtful that he could be a worse president than Dubbya—whom Chalmers Johnson called a "sophomoric ignoramus" and surmised "was likely the single worst president in the history of the American republic [see the Introduction to Dismantling the Empire]"—but we only can hope that Trump will never have the opportunity to show us.

The primary difference between Clinton and the Donald is that Hillary has a track record in "public service". She has DEMONSTRATED her undesirability for the presidency while Trump only PROMISES by implication to be undesirable. No matter what might happen in a Clinton/Trump contest the perpetually bamboozled American voters would be REALLY screwed this time around. But wait.Isn't that what happened when Dubbya was appointed POTUS by SCOTUS. Maybe some things really don't ever change. Why hasn't Bernie Sanders received more press?

humane paradigm

05/17/2016 presidential contest "what ifs":

I'm still hoping that Bernie Sanders can win the Democratic nomination. In the narrowed field of wannabees he's the only one that might be voted FOR without voting AGAINST someone else. And he has enough fresh [different] ideas that the establishment wants to bury him. He's done remarkably well in the primaries with relatively little press exposure.

Nonetheless many folks are speculating about an ultimate Clinton versus Trump contest. In that case Marc Farber recently said that he would vote for Trump "Because he may only destroy the U.S. economy. But Hillary Clinton will destroy the whole world" [reported by conservativefiringline.com]. Noam Chomsky on the other hand told Amy Goodman that "I would vote against Trump, and by elementary arithmetic, that means you hold your nose and you vote Democrat. I don't think there's any other rational choice"

I very seldom disagree with anything Noam Chomsky has to say but I simply can't go along this time. No matter who might win such a hypothetical contest, it would be a setback for mankind. If a Clinton versus Trump contest actually materializes I'll have to write in Bernie Sanders anyway. It would be the only rational choice for me.

Consider this. While talking to Amy Goodman Professor Chomsky stated, "today's Republican Party qualify as candidates for the most dangerous organization in human history. Literally". No argument here but one might successfully argue that any Democractic Party led by hawkish Hillary Clinton might be classified as candidates for the second most dangerous organization in human history. I simply don't see the merit in picking one of two very dangerous organizations to "lead the free world". The American system that ushered us to this precipice is in desperate need of change. We thought we were getting change with Barack Obama but that was pure illusion. Bernie seems real.

05/13/2016 Michael Hayden and the "alternative universe":

According to "Business Insider" ex NSA director and ex CIA director Michael Hayden was "forced" to watch the trailer for Oliver Stone's "Snowden" which is scheduled to open in theaters in September. Hayden's immediate reacticn according to the report can be considered very telling. Stone's work appears sympathetic to privacy rights and Magna Carta principle and "To Hayden, the portrayal is an 'alternative universe'."

Time and again this site has tried to inform those ignorant of military values just how great a philosophical divide exists between those who are extensively, militarily trained and those who are reasonably well-educated and astute. Having military minds head up civilian activities is ludicrously short-sighted. There was a time in America when the advisability of appointing retired flag officers to high-level civilian posts was open to public debate. Not so in our contemporary society where unwarranted military influence with exorbitantly allocated congressional funding pulls far too many strings to expect the survival of anything resembling a free and open society. .

Valid CSS!