Trump's Brain

Trump suffers from narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), or at least that's the verdict passed  by psychologists commenting for the media.  He qualifies on all expected traits, we're told, and quite impressively.

“He’s so classic that I’m archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because there’s no better example of his characteristics,” said clinical psychologist George Simon, who conducts lectures and seminars on manipulative behavior. “Otherwise, I would have had to hire actors and write vignettes. He’s like a dream come true.”

• To reach the level of a personality disorder, the behavior must be deeply ingrained, intense, displayed in a variety of situations, and maladaptive, causing long-term difficulties in personal relationships or in functioning in society.   

Whether the disorder is or isn't, Trumps public behavior follows a pattern. Bullying, over-talking, self-focused, an overblown opinion of self and worth; Trump declares, "I will be the greatest jobs president God ever created." He mentions himself with regularity, pointing out his superiority over others. “On social media, I’m the one that’s beloved.”

A favorite illustration; when the Chicago Trump Tower and Hotel project borrowed $640 million from Deutsche Bank to get underway, Trump personally guaranteed $40 million of it.  When the financial crash hit in '07-8, the bank asked for their money, so Trump sued the bank for $3 Billion.  He sued them!  He sued the people he owed money to for 75 times the amount he had personally guaranteed.  He sued them!  He claimed the market turmoil was the equivalent of an act of God, and he shouldn't have to pay.  A reasonable business person would have made a good-faith payment and negotiated the terms for resolving the problem, but not Trump.  Apparently, he'd rather spend money on the battle than pay the debt he actually owed.  

There's a chance that this isn't a disorder, but a strategy.
Consider, Syrian refugees and the Paris violence - All the Republicans are endorsing tighter controls even going so far as to recommend a pause in refugee acceptance.  Trump goes to the extreme and says, "Ban all Muslims from entering the U.S."   In doing so, he became the centerpiece of media discussion for more than a week while other candidates are relegated to sideline commentary.  His recommendation was unreasonable and unworkable in any form.  When asked about it, Trump interrupted and sidestepped from the practical realities while maintaining center stage.

He's oddly persistent when caught in inaccurate statements. E.g., "... thousands of people were cheering as the building was coming down," that Trump claims to have seen in New Jersey on 9/11. When asked, he insists, "I'm not going to take it back."

Trump supporters may not actually agree with him, it turns out, as his claims and proposals often break down when examined.  Perhaps they just share his dissatisfaction with the current government.  With the media-enhanced explosion of fear in the nation recently, little of the discussion is clearly productive.

One down, hundreds up

The town was pressured into taking down their community's nativity scene, so hundreds of residents put up their own.

In Minnesota, the Wadena City Council took down a nativity scene they've traditionally displayed in the city park every year at Christmas time. They were forced into the decision by the Freedom from Religion Foundation which argued that it’s unlawful for a city to display a religious scene, “thus singling out, showing preference for, and endorsing one religion.” They threatened to sue the town.

That's just angry folks being grumpy, I suppose, but such politically correct thinking plagues our nation in so many ways.  Those cannot be happy people.

Anyway, now there are more than a thousand nativity scenes across the town, all on private property.

The community's response caught the attention of local and national news media, so the story has made the rounds.  Local resident Dani Sworski may have started it all.  She says she “wanted to make sure that we stood together, we came together for our faith, as friends as family, and we all kind of grew from this.” Good for them.

It's worth noting, we needn't succumb to the watered down and lifeless norms offered by either the media or the politically correct.  Merry Christmas.

What I think you think

We can best understand the furies of politics by remembering that almost the whole of each party believes absolutely in its picture of the opposition; that it takes as fact, not what is, but what it supposes to be the fact.  ~ The New Republic, Walter Lippman (March, 1922)

As we face the problem of violent extremists, it would be easy to attribute their behavior to the simplistic explanation of religious mandate.  Doing so allows us to categorize and quantify the problem, and to form a response.  It's probably a mistake to do so.

The tendency in us all is to decide before we discern.  We are likely to interpret what we see and hear in terms of our expectations.  If I don't like Democrats (or Republicans), everything they say and do will seem (to me) to justify my disapproval. 

Attributing simplistic motive - it's what pre-reasoning children do when they're in conflict with parents.  "You won't let me go out because you just don't want me to have any fun!" Or, because you just want to be in control, or because you don't want me to have any friends, or because ....  The list is long, and in every case it's inaccurate.  If we attribute motive to another and make decisions on that specious information, we're always wrong.

Always.  There's no progress possible in such a context, only conflict.

Motivation is complex.  If you were to try to explain your own motives in the moment, your explanation would be partial at best.  Why you chose your partner, your career path, your faith, your lifestyle ... all would need a collection of books to cover the actual path to decision. Every action in the moment has a traceable history that is rich with influences.

Similarly, the motives of political opponents or, perhaps more importantly, of violent extremists which we easily ascribe to single-sentence descriptions are in actuality quite complex.  If we're to pursue progress rather than continued conflict, it takes more understanding.  Much more.

As a beginning point for understanding religious extremists in the middle-East, it's worth noting that the current struggle began more than a century ago and is rooted in oppression, persecution, and human rights abuse.  Simply returning fire validates the current uprising.

What kind of response might begin to defuse the situation and address the cause? 

       (The challenge is to have uncomfortable conversations.  Because there are really only two choices: conversation or violence.  If there's a third way, human beings haven't discovered it.  ~ Sam Harris)

Merry Christmas, Ben Stein

My confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejewelled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are, Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a nativity scene, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Hurricane Katrina). Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives.And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'

In light of recent events... terrorist attacks, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said okay.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'we reap what we sow.'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell.
Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.

Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.

Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit.

If not, then just discard it.... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what a bad shape the world is in.

My best regards, honestly and respectfully,

Ben Stein
More from Ben Stein, Christmas '11

What is a nation?

Largest ethnic group or race as percentage of total population:
Dark yellow: 85% or more are from majority ethnicity
Yellow: 65%-84% are from majority ethnicity
Light yellow: 64% or fewer are from majority ethnicity
Dark blue: 85% or more are from majority race
Blue: 65%-84% are from majority race
Light blue: 64% or fewer are from majority race
Source: The World Factbook, with data as of 2000–2008.

Nation, sovereign state,
   city-state, nation-state ...
      multination state, empire ...

We identify ourselves by origin.
We're from the U.S., the E.U., or from
Australia or Africa ...

Where did that come from,
and what does it mean?

Despite our belief that national identity
has always been with us, it's actually
rather new.  Perhaps around the mid-
18th century, people began to identify
themselves with the country at large, rather
than the smaller units of family, town, or province.

Nation (Latin: natio "people, tribe, kin") is a social concept with no agreed definition. In common use, it is a place with population that shares common culture, tradition, values, and perhaps language.  Nations are formed over time, generation after generation, merged together into a common identity with agreed values. If you add 'state' (as in nation-state), that's the political legitimacy part where governance and sovereignty enter the picture. There's much more, but what difference does it make to the individual?
  
So, nation, state, and our identity, or our concept of ourselves in relation to geography...

Past:  'Nations' perhaps began to emerge in common understanding along with advances in cartography and map publication, mercantilism and regional economies, and politics, around the 15th century.  The 'state' (or formalization of national sovereignty with constitution, law, and borders) came later.  Most historians see the nation-state as a 19th century European phenomenon.  In any case, it's recent in human history.  

Before there were nations, one's place-identity was simply cultural and ethnic affiliations with some small geographic context, however imprecise.  There were large and small places with lords, vassals, and fiefs (or their local equivalent).  A fiefdom might be a valley and its occupants, just few hundred folks.  Sometimes marriage between noble houses would merge one area with another.  An empire might swallow you and your community for a few centuries as part of their domain, their realm of rule.  Boundaries were rivers and the sea, mountains and the horizon ...

Present:  Boundaries today are political and precise.  One problematic reality - cultures and ethnicities may not fit inside those boundaries.  

In some cases, ethnic geography and the political state largely coincide; Japan, Egypt, and Albania are examples.  There is little immigration or emigration, and little diversity of the sort we might see in the Americas.

More often, political boundaries intrude into cultural life.  Innumerable conflicts have arisen and continue to spring up where political boundaries do not correspond to ethnic or cultural boundaries.  After the breakup of the Soviet Union, ancient conflicts between the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes resurfaced, and 'ethnic cleansing' became part of modern vocabulary.  Civil wars in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 90's displaced large segments of the populations and segregated societies whom the CCCP had attempted to assimilate and rule.  Virtually all colonial efforts have had similar results.  There are few boundaries in Africa that were not drawn through the middle of ethnic groups, even through villages and towns.

Left to itself, Africa would be

perhaps a dozen countries.

Left to itself, speculation suggests, Africa would be perhaps a dozen countries.  The 50+ we see are just lines drawn by outsiders for various advantages, and the turmoil continues today.

Multifaceted nations may or may not merge into a single culture.  Success varies, perhaps unifying, perhaps polarizing, often determined by ideology and values, and by the performance of leadership.  Cultures may divide over values.

National loyalties wax and wane, similarly dependent on how well the leadership serves and how clearly values are preserved.  

Most violent conflicts today are cultural/ethnic vs. political.  The imposition of governance and boundaries, particularly in the modern form, can be as much divisive as it is unifying, as much provoking as pacifying.  

Yesterday's conflict examples?  The American Revolution, the French Revolution, the abolition of slavery and the U.S. Civil War, and the world wars.  The underlying question in the minds of the populous, "Can I approve and acquiesce to that which is being imposed on me and my children by those who rule?"

Today's conflict examples?  The Arab Spring, the Syrian Civil War, ISIL/ISIS, Russia and the Ukraine.  Internal conflicts over ideology, national values, discrimination, inequality.

What happens when things change?  What happens when the values we cherish disappear from the nation we've claimed as our own?  Does it make a difference when the traditions we hold dear are no longer reflected in national policy?  If our family roots are tied to ethical standards which no longer permeate the national culture, are we still tied to the nation?

If you're an American with traditional inclinations, you probably have more in common with a Muslim cab driver in Mombasa than you do with decision makers on Wall Street or Pennsylvania Avenue.  From the top of the list: healthy community and family, fair business, freedom and equality, a reasonable world with education and opportunity for your children; you could talk comfortably for hours if the cab ride lasted that long.  Try that with JPMorgan.

America's reputation has declined internationally.  American patriotism is on the decline among the younger members, and we generally disapprove of our national governance.  What's next?  What are the issues of conscience and conviction that citizens need to tackle?  Are they issues of law or liberty?  Of cultural unity and common values?  Of justice?

Future:  Globalization is changing the nation-states.  The global marketplace (especially finance), communications, multinational corporations (many larger than countries), cross-boundary connectedness and political awareness, all are moving faster than governments can regulate and leverage.  Political scientists speculate that the nation-state is outdated and may become obsolete; we are offered either a one world government or a zero world government (communal anarchy) as the expected replacement.  Humorous extremes, perhaps, but we're reminded that things do change.

As long as we're being humorous, this one showed up in my email from a tongue-in-cheek conservative yesterday ... 

The Rebirth of America

1.  President Marco Rubio and Vice President Carly Fiorina are sworn into office.

2.  In a rare event on inauguration day, Congress convenes for an emergency meeting to repeal the illegal and unconstitutional Socialist healthcare farce known as Obamacare.  The new Director of Health and Social Services Dr. Ben Carson announces that an independent group of healthcare management professionals is hired to handle healthcare services for poor and low income people.  They are also assigned the duty of eliminating Medicare and Medicaid fraud.  Government’s costs for public healthcare are reduced by 90%.  Healthcare insurance premiums for working Americans are reduced by 50%.  The move saves billions of taxpayer paid dollars.  Healthcare service in the U.S improves 100%.

3.  Newly appointed department of Homeland Security Chief Donald Trump announces the immediate deployment of Troops to the U.S. Mexico border to control illegal immigration and the immediate deportation of illegals with criminal records or links to terrorist groups.  New bio-encrypted Social Security ID’s are required by every American citizen.  Birthright is abolished. All immigration from countries that represent a threat to the safety of American citizens is terminated indefinitely. The move saves American taxpayers billions of dollars.  Several prisons are closed.

4.  Newly appointed Secretary of Business and Economic Development Ted Cruz eliminates more than half of the Government agencies operating under the Obama administration saving taxpayers billions of dollars.  Stocks rise 100%. 

 5.  Newly appointed Director of Government Finance Rand Paul announces the abolition of the IRS and displays a copy of the new Federal Tax Return form.  It consists of one page.  The instructions consist of two pages. The Federal Reserve is audited. The move saves American Taxpayers billions of dollars and increases tax revenue.

6.  Hillary Clinton is in jail, where she belongs.  Her cell is directly across from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who are serving time for ‘Hate Crimes”.  She bitches at them constantly from behind the bars of her cell in what some might call cruel and unusual punishment.

7.  Bernie Sanders is in the nuthouse, where he belongs.  His room is directly across from Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chris Matthews and Al Franken.  They meet for tea every day at ten and discuss the success and benefits of Communism and Socialism throughout the world.  They also wonder when the “Mothership” is going to pick them up and return them to their home planets.

8.  Windows 12 is released.  It is designed for humans, doesn’t try to satisfy the needs of every person on the planet, doesn’t require a degree in nuclear physics to operate and looks just like Windows 7 except it is easier to use.

9. Oscar Meyer announces the introduction of a new cholesterol and fat free pepperoni that tastes just like regular pepperoni.

10.  Dead people are no longer allowed to vote in Chicago, a blow for the Democrat Party in the State of Illinois.

And this constitutes THE REBIRTH OF AMERICA!!!!!!
(a little humor can soften the reality, perhaps)

Decades of lies, and history repeats itself

E.g.; Tobacco companies lied for decades about health issues. 

• In 2006 a U.S. district judge ruled that U.S. cigarette makers had knowingly lied about the dangers of smoking for decades.
• The tobacco companies were forced to publish statements saying that they had deceived the American public about the dangers of smoking and disclosing that smoking “kills more people than murder, AIDS, suicide, drugs, car crashes, and alcohol combined, and that ‘secondhand smoke kills over 38,000 Americans a year.’”
• By the time they were forced to come forward with the truth, we all knew they were liars anyway, and it was too late for the millions killed, sickened, or deformed by tobacco smoke.
• Their policy of lies is indescribably wicked, forfeiting lives in favor of profits.

E.g.; Similarly, Wall Street's 'too big to fail' behemoths lied and manipulated governments for regulatory change which they exploited for trillions at the expense of everyone else in the world, literally.

• They have provided no benefit and brought both risk and harm to the world, as was pointed out by the UK finance minister.  More than a million died as a result of the Great Recession alone.  Compensation for players was magnificent, billions extracted from the marketplace where trillions were lost by everyone else.  
• Their policy of lies is indescribably wicked, deliberately extracting wealth from individuals and nations for the financial benefit of a few.  

E.g.; In similar fashion, the fossil fuel industry has been concealing information about their products since the 1970s.

• Exxon has recently acknowledged that climate change has begun, due in large part to the burning of fossil fuels.  They attempted to hide that truth for decades, a deliberate misrepresentation detailed in a Harvard study of internal corporate correspondence.  Inside Climate News explains further how Exxon’s own research confirmed the role of fossil fuel in climate change decades ago (1977). 

They saw clearly and chose unethically.

• Exxon (and others) conducted cutting-edge climate research and then, without revealing what it had learned, worked at the forefront of climate denial, manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that its own scientists had confirmed more than thirty years earlier.  Documents from company archives and interviews with research participants have unveiled the corporate decision to misrepresent the facts.   (All the companies knew.  Members of an American Petroleum Institute task force on CO2 included scientists from nearly every major oil company, including Exxon, Texaco and Shell.)
• By the time we discovered their scheme, we all knew they had been obscuring the truth anyway, and much damage was done. It is too late to fully stem the environmental and ecological damage.  The result, it will detrimentally affect every future generation.
• For the companies, their policy of lies is indescribably wicked, forfeiting future quality of life in favor of current profits.

It's interesting to note that the supreme court has given such corporations the right to campaign, to influence policy, and to change the course of the nation.  The most unethical entities among us wield the most power.  Is that troublesome?

What if R.J. Reynolds had told the truth?
What if Wall Street and the Federal Reserve had told the truth?

What if Exxon and Texaco and Shell had told the truth?

As a nation and a people, we will indeed fight our way through.  It's perhaps worth identifying our proven adversaries along the way (the murderous ones like these).   

A government of, by, and actually for the people will be a bit of a change. 
(Understatement of the year!)