The Democratic Party Debates And The Appearance Of Impropriety

If the Democrats want their nominating convention to descend into chaos and result in a disastrous split, I’d say they are making all the right decisions. If they want to bring a united and confident organization into the 2020 battle with the GOP and President Trump, however, they are botching things badly.

The ethics issues at play here are fairness and competence.

The Democratic National Committee now says that the next debate,  finally a  head-to-head showdown between socialist Bernie Sanders and whatever-he-is-at-the-moment Joe Biden, will have both candidates seated as they take unplanned <cough!>questions from undecided voters in the audience, unlike the previous debates which had the candidates  challenged by questions from professional journalist moderators while standing behind  podiums for hours.

Brilliant! What could go wrong? Except that some in the Bernie Sanders camp are convinced that the format has been deliberately engineered to minimize the exposure of Joe Biden, who appears to be aging as quickly as  poor Walter Donovan after he chooses the wrong chalice in “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.”

“Why does Joe Biden not want to stand toe-to-toe with Sen. Sanders on the debate stage March 15 and have an opportunity to defend his record and articulate his vision for the future?” asks Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ senior adviser, quoted in Politico.

Biden’s campaign and the DNC say the format for the debate was decided by the party along with CNN, which will host it, and the news network referred questions back to the DNC. The problem for both is the lack of any credibility whatsoever. The DNC was infamously dwelling in Hillary Clinton’s metaphorical pocket in 2016, putting its elbow on the scales in any way it could get away with (and several ways it could not)  to ensure Hillary’s coronation, and now is widely believed to condider Bernie’s nomination a looming disaster. CNN, of course, is the anti-Trump network, and has similar concerns. Nobody in their right minds should believe the protestations of either CNN or the DNC as they say, “Who, us? How could anyone suspect us of wanting anything but a fair debate conferring no advantage on either candidate? How dare you!”

Naturally, the Biden camp has its lines down. “We will participate in whatever debate CNN chooses to stage: standing, sitting, at podiums, or in a town hall,” Biden’s deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield said. “The problem for the Sanders campaign is not the staging of the debate, but rather, the weakness of Sen. Sanders’ record and ideas.”

Good one! Do you believe it?

Here’s the other problem: none of the past debates this time—what have there been, 50 of them?—had any resemblance to real debates, Kennedy-Nixon style.  On a stage with so many competitors (the smallest number so far has been six), a candidate’s exposure is minimal. Even in a three hour marathon, including commercial breaks, questions and interruptions and assuming relatively even distribution of time, each candidate gets no more than ten minutes an hour of exposure, a handicap for masters of logorrhea like Elizabeth Warren, but a boon for a candidate like Biden—has there ever been a candidate like Biden?–who is prone to incoherent outbursts like the “struggling actor” in that Liberty Mutual ad who gets dubbed after saying “Liberty Bibberty.”

There is nothing wrong with trying different formats, of course. The first use of the town meeting format, which also allowed candidates to sit if they liked and wander the stage, famously exposed President George H.W. Bush’s seeming boredom with the chore of campaigning, as he was caught glancing at his watch to see when the damn thing would be over. Furthermore, there will presumably be no rule forcing a candidate to stay seated. If  78 year-old Sanders stands and moves around, bad heart and all, 77-year old Waldorf—I’m sorry, Biden-–would be ill-advised to stay in his chair.

My guess is that the DNC and CNN were not trying to rig the debate to help Joe Biden, but are victims of their already squandered credibility, especially the DNC after the pro-Hillary machinations of Donna Brazile and the awful Debby Wasserman Schultz in 2016. They both have, however, unnecessarily and ineptly courted the appearance of impropriety, which the Sanders team is predictably exploiting. This format would have seemed more innocent after at least one, old-fashioned, head to head, moderator-centered debate…assuming it wasn’t marred by any Biden Liberty Bibberties.

32 thoughts on “The Democratic Party Debates And The Appearance Of Impropriety

  1. They have to protect Biden to keep up the illusion that he is a candidate for President. They can’t let people begin to wonder why they are supporting a man whose brain can’t handle standing and talking at the same time. If they do start to wonder if he really is the best person the Democratic Party has in the entire country, they will realize that they are supporting him only because they are told to support him. They might wonder why the party of women and minorities isn’t supporting Tulsi Gabbard instead of pretending she isn’t even in the race. Then they will realize that the party and the media supported Kamalah Harris, then Beto O’Rourke, then Pete Buttegeig, then (in desperation) Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobochar. The media made them all out to be fantastic candidates, but when each was found lacking, they were rejected. The Leftist Establishment never tried to find the best candidate, the one who would do the best job for the people and the country. They were just auditioning spokesmen and spokeswomen for the Establishment to find one the public would accept. They didn’t plan ahead and all that is left is Joe Biden. They can’t allow Bernie Sanders to be the nominee because they don’t control him. They don’t control Michael Bloomberg either and I think they were more afraid of him than Bernie, he could have actually become their master. If Tulsi Gabbard would have just sold out completely, she could be the candidate right now, but her corruption isn’t complete yet. Maybe next time.

    The Establishment is more concerned with control than ‘winning’ elections. John Kerry or George W.H. Bush? What is the difference, they take their orders from the same place. Obama or Romney? Same thing. Why did it become so important to get rid of Donald Trump? What did he ever do that was worse than Biden or Bloomberg or Obama? Donald Trump is not under the control of the Establishment and that is why he has to go. Allowing a Democratic candidate not under control of the Establishment would make the situation even worse. It is better for them to just let Trump get re-elected and hope to re-gain control of both parties after he is gone. They can’t let the American public get used to electing Presidents.

    • I agree. My concern is that HRC will be paired with Biden on the ticket. If successful they will invoke article 25 after old Joe has a “stroke”. If I were Biden I wouldn’t let HRC get anywhere near the line of succession.

      • Not a chance. It will be someone young, like Harris, Abrams, or Booker. Possibly Klobuchar — but I think he is leaning to a person of color.

        • It kind of depends on what kind of power HRC still wields in the party. The party doesn’t care because, in the end, the Democratic candidate doesn’t run the country even if elected President.

        • What skill sets do any of those bring? Is the choice simply a racial or gender rationale? If so why should race be a factor for such a position?

          • If the President is just a figurehead, ‘skill set’ is irrelevant. The Democratic Party faithful have been indoctrinated in identity politics. All minorities demand minority candidates, professors, doctors, engineers, etc. All whites must support minority candidates, professors, doctors, engineers, etc or it proves they are racist, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic (you have to collect them all). More ‘diversity’ in the candidate equals more forced votes. The idea is that the motivation here is to promote the idea of diversity and make sure the President is a figurehead only.

            If ‘skill set’ is relevant, then all affirmative-action programs are immoral.

            • If the President is just a figurehead, ‘skill set’ is irrelevant. The Democratic Party faithful have been indoctrinated in identity politics. All minorities demand minority candidates, professors, doctors, engineers, etc. All whites must support minority candidates, professors, doctors, engineers, etc or it proves they are racist, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic (you have to collect them all). More ‘diversity’ in the candidate equals more forced votes. The idea is that the motivation here is to promote the idea of diversity and make sure the President is a figurehead only.

              What this shows is, horrifyingly, a severe flaw in democracy. While I understand the republican form of government and why it was established as a brake against the *masses*, there comes a point where the masses are simply more numerous, more powerful, than the republican brake.

              Infiltrated by identity politics? But such politics, such orientation, and the result of it, was clearly seen and understood before the present demographic trends were set in motion! And I mean absolutely seen, absolutely explained, down to the most minor details. These were America’s leading men and certainly their leading scholars. Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant being the two notables.

              They saw clearly what was happening. They saw clearly what would happen. They sounded an alarm. And they were dismissed, absolutely, from public discourse. A kind of a purge. All of this, most especially, in the Postwar years following WW2. (These men wrote in the teens, twenties and thirties of course, and they were certainly resisted then, but especially in the Postwar years were they excised from discourse).

              Now: it is absolute crimethink to mention their names.

              The political left is completely right when they raise their hysterical alarms when the slightest reaction is noted among those slated for dispossession and displacement. Simply complaining of the fate is enough to get them to come out in a mob. Because they know what they are doing and why they are doing it.

              What is going to happen next? What does the future hold? I do not mean the next year or two. I mean the next decade. Where is this going?

              • Unlike Mssrs. Stoddard and Grant, most civilized people believe in the power of properly educating and socializing the human race no matter their racial background. We believe in the power of an empowered educated humanity of all races. Now we can argue about what properly educated means, but to boil this all down to color, very slight genetic differences, and eugenecist theories on how to manage those of color in predominantly white society is not what American society stands for in the main, nor is it the goal of any Constitutionalist I have ever encountered.

                There is no person of any color or heritage who cannot become a highly valuable member of this republic. To this point in history, we have mishandled this opportunity many times and have systemically performed disservices to our citizens in allowing and even encouraging the dissolution of families and politicization of our public educational system.

                Those who claim math, science, and language are racist constructs are the genuine racists, arguing people, any people, who cannot understand alleged race-based white constructs are victims. To be clear predominantly white societies have much to learn from others and should approach intercultural knowledge with humility and accept the reality European based systems can mute and have muted opportunities broaden and better our society.

                The struggle this republic faces is to regain control of its public education system, depoliticize it, enact policies to improve family culture, and focus on delivering the knowledge and skills to each person to the maximum of their capacity in order to contribute to their lives and the life of the republic.

                These are high-minded ideals. As Americans under our Constitution, we are called to fulfill them to the best of our ability. Perhaps we will fail or have already failed, but going down taking the right moral, ethical, and civil actions is required.

          • They bring the skillset of tossing a bone to the woke on twitter and left wing blogs who are going to have to spend seven months eating crow after coming out so hard for Biden and Warren and insisting that the time of moderate old white men was over.

            The problem the Dems have is that two of their largest and most vocal voting blocks traditionally look for excuses to stay home on Election day, and they know Biden isn’t going to get them off the couch.

          • Because *race is real* and *race matters*. Because a new demographic is now assuming power in America. It will take a bit longer, but still.

            What I find *interesting* in a sad sort of way — it is sadly tragic and also sadly comic at the same time! — is your total refusal to *see* what is happening, and why it is happening.

            The image used on the Dissident Right is that of a deer caught in the headlights.

        • Not a chance. It will be someone young, like Harris, Abrams, or Booker. Possibly Klobuchar — but I think he is leaning to a person of color.

          I thought the word *leaning* was interesting. While I understand what you mean it comes down more to what the riled-up public — the constituency of the New Dynamic Colored America — wants and must have. The people who carefully analyze American demographics are those who have a clear vision of how the ‘look’ of politics must conform to the new demographics that, going forward as it is now, is America’s destiny.

          The ideological trend, obviously, is *anti-white* to notable degrees. Many on this blog call that *racism* but it is, in fact, race-realism. The Colored Masses clamor for *someone who looks like them*. This is entirely logical of course.

          It is very odd: in the 5-6 years that I have been paying attention I notice on one side the Democrat-Liberal-Progressive faction consolidating their position, their desire and their will. They have the winning demographic ticket but they have no united nor even coherent program. Every aspect of their platform can splinter and shatter with just mind pressure.

          On the other side are new theorists: like Patrick Buchanan and Victor David Hansen. From these, and further to the right, others develop a platform that is still theoretical, but yet describes accurately what will eventually happen: a continuation of what is now happening: the eventual take-over by the newer American demographic. They are aware of what they face and what they face is the continuation of the processes of dispossession & displacement.

          In a very very strange *middle territory* there sits, like an Orange Bullfrog, the presidency of Donald Trump and his army of Republican Lieutenants. What, exactly, are they doing? Well, it’s not nothing. But it does not address in any particularly substantial way what is actually happening and where things will go in the near future.

          The only option I see is that the American Center must completely remake itself to conform to the present demographic reality. I think that that means *California*. That’s what’s next.

          • Perhaps we/you should care less about how people look or their national origin and care much more about how well they are educated and critically think. To borrow from Dr. King, content of character and its application is what matters. If in 50 years the language of this country is Swahili and that works best for the vast majority of citizens, who cares, as long as the country offers the freedom, rights, and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution.

  2. Keep a close eye on who is or will be touted as Joe’s running mate. That person will be more dangerous to the country than Joe Biden…especially if a hypothetical President Biden doesn’t survive his term of office. I sometimes wonder if that’s the DNC’s game plan.

    • All candidates need a young, dynamic VP. Quite frankly, I don’t see Trump, Biden, or Sanders making it another 4-5 years.

      • Normally, I would agree with that, but I wouldn’t count Trump out. It was reported that Trump did a 3 hour rally, travelled to CPAC, and then did another 2 hours talking and standing. Yes, he looked tired at the end of CPAC, but anyone would be tired after all that. Trump is the only president in recent memory that hasn’t visibly aged during his first term. He could be too old for that to happen, but I don’t think that is it. I think he is actually President, he likes it, and he is actually enjoying a lot of being President. Maybe tweeting out your frustrations keeps you from bottling up the stress.

          • Now, now—a rhetorical bait and switch. Chris’s point is that there no reason to assume Trump isn’t going to survive a second term, not that this is a reason TO elect him, but that the opposite is no reason NOT to. He didn’t say or suggest that being hardy alone meant he was a capable leader.

          • Because being able to live 4 years does not mean you are a capable leader?

            In the PBS FrontLine interviews of many of the important figures who surrounded Trump, both for him and against him, Bannon seemed one of the most interesting. As he (and his people) contemplated the situation they knew that the Republican Party was corrupt, self-serving, and certainly not an American worker-supporting party. They are, according to Bannon, a party of TOTAL TRAITORS. And Bannon dreamed of the day when *a torch would be held to them* and when their entire modus operandi would be disrupted.

            Back then, Trump had not entered the race. But Bannon said then “Our man will come along”. And their man came along.

            Capable leader is an interesting term. Trump is, in many ways, completely capable to the project he has set himself to. He totally overturned politics in the US! He turned it upside-down. As a result of his win a vast, a wide, a difficult, a scathing, a contentious conversation has opened up. And everyone — not only here among Americans but world-wide — is talking about it.

            The turn to the right; the resistance of insane hyper-liberalism and globalization; turning a knife-gaze on those who brought all this to us: this is what this capable leader has brought us.

            The Greeks have the notion of necessity: Ananke. This is 300 feet above the limit of your girlish intelligence but I will mention it anyway:

            In ancient Greek religion, Ananke (/əˈnæŋkiː/; Greek: Ἀνάγκη, from the common noun ἀνάγκη, “force, constraint, necessity”) is the personification of inevitability, compulsion and necessity. She is customarily depicted as holding a spindle.

            Writes Victor Hugo:

            “Religion, society, nature; these are the three struggles of man. These three conflicts are, at the same time, his three needs: it is necessary for him to believe, hence the temple; it is necessary for him to create, hence the city; it is necessary for him to live, hence the plow and the ship. But these three solutions contain three conflicts. The mysterious difficulty of life springs from all three. Man has to deal with obstacles under the form of superstition, under the form of prejudice, and under the form of the elements. A triple “ananke” (necessity) weighs upon us, the “ananke” of dogmas, the “ananke” of laws, and the “ananke” of things. In Notre Dame de Paris the author has denounced the first; in Les Misérables he has pointed out the second; in this book (Toilers of the Sea) he indicates the third. With these three fatalities which envelop man is mingled the interior fatality, that supreme ananke, the human heart.”

            — Preface to Toilers of the Sea, 1866

            There is a unique anake operating today, and definitely in Donald Trump. There is something *inevitable* in it: destined. It seems like it just had to happen, doesn’t it?

            In a sense it is one of the most exciting and interesting of American historical junctures. Many many different levels of meaning can be read from it and into it. It is all marvelously undecided.

          • I did not bring up the issue of being able to last 4 years. We actually have no idea who will survive the next 4 years.

            In my opinion none of the people you initially referenced are capable leaders. The only thing any of them seem capable of doing is creating class warfare, bitterness and resentment. Perhaps that is the reason none are in the hunt now. Even if I were a Democrat or socialist I cannot vote for anyone that trades on race and gender issues. If the policy is not ecumenical in scope such that it does not benefit all persons regardless of ethnicity, race or gender, I cannot and will not support it. The reason why is that policies favoring one group always lead to further resentment and anger among those not benefitting from the policy which then requires the government to grow to address the angered constituencies demands. It becomes a never ending cycle of government expansion and reductions in personal autonomy and liberty.

            • In my opinion none of the people you initially referenced are capable leaders. The only thing any of them seem capable of doing is creating class warfare, bitterness and resentment. Perhaps that is the reason none are in the hunt now. Even if I were a Democrat or socialist I cannot vote for anyone that trades on race and gender issues. If the policy is not ecumenical in scope such that it does not benefit all persons regardless of ethnicity, race or gender, I cannot and will not support it. The reason why is that policies favoring one group always lead to further resentment and anger among those not benefitting from the policy which then requires the government to grow to address the angered constituencies demands. It becomes a never ending cycle of government expansion and reductions in personal autonomy and liberty.

              What a mess you’ve gotten your selves in!

              Excuse me for speaking to this and not so much to you. But it is what I do and it is the task I have set myself to: to accurately see and to accurately describe what is going on, and why, and what the idea-structures are that inform how we see, how we *impose* the way we see, and how that we think and why we think it determines, precisely, mathematically, what we create.

              You were *engineered* at a certain point, under the constraints of extreme guilt-slinging, to modify an understanding about things that was fundamental to perception. It was definitely fundamental to the perception of the Founders when they created a republic for themselves and their posterity. They knew who they were, they knew what they were capable of, and they also understood their importance in the world. Even up to the early part of the 20th century there was a fundamental, a basic understanding — common sense-based, logical, rational — of anthropology. All of this was the culmination of *our traditions*. The root of those traditions in Occidental culture.

              In you these have all been turned on their heads. What happened? Well, *what happened* can be traced out. It can be rationally described and placed on a chart of sorts. In the paragraph you presented, above, you reveal clearly, concisely and nearly perfectly how your political philosophy is that of Progressivism. It is not liberalism as it was originally understood though. It is liberalism’s extreme modification: a blending and infusion with Marxian categories. These actually did begin their infusion in the mid-1800s. The Marxian influence in and on America is a story that has not been well-told (perhaps because so few are *at home* to hear it).

              There is no part of what you are saying — no part! — that is necessarily moral or ethical, though you predicate your declarations in the belief that they are so. I could make the argument, and I will eventually perfect that argument, that what happened to you, what was *done* to you, and what resulted from what was done, has rendered you an unethical man, an immoral man in certain, specific senses, and senses that can be fairly and rationally explained.

              You cannot define yourself except as a vague *idea*. You have lost, and had subtracted from you, the necessary self-identification and self-respect that was common in Occidental man for centuries. Without understanding how it happened you have come to serve *the other* but that other is not you. You are no included in that definition. Because you cannot define yourself concretely. How the link between you-as-idea and your physical, historical self was sundered: that is what I have set myself to define.

              This is where merciless analysis and truth-telling needs to occur. The point? To recover the possibility of intensely strong self-definition that throws off the inflicted definitions that have been used, cynically, against you: you as a European. The object: to define an ethical and moral reanimation of self-definion and self-respect that will allow you to *turn the tide* that is now engulfing you and which in a short while will annihilate you and yours.

              It is an exciting time to be alive . . . and a good day to die.

  3. Okay. So the questions will be unscripted and randomly chosen from the audience. Query: So, what exactly will be projected on the teleprompters that will be placed on each side of Sleepy Joe’s comfy chair?

    • The preselected questions and answers, of course!

      I could be wrong. This could be like Celebrity Jeopardy for Biden and normal Jeopardy for Bernie.

      Normal Jeopardy: “Famous 22’s”. A: The Emancipation Proclamation was delivered on the 22nd of this month.

      Celebrity Jeopardy: “On September 22, 1862, Abraham Lincoln issued this Proclamation, freeing the slaves in the Confederacy”.*

      *actual Celebrity Jeopardy question that timed out without a response.

  4. AdImageJim writes: “Unlike Mssrs. Stoddard and Grant, most civilized people believe in the power of properly educating and socializing the human race no matter their racial background. We believe in the power of an empowered educated humanity of all races. Now we can argue about what properly educated means, but to boil this all down to color, very slight genetic differences, and eugenecist theories on how to manage those of color in predominantly white society is not what American society stands for in the main, nor is it the goal of any Constitutionalist I have ever encountered.

    As with Chomsky you have never read either Grant or Stoddard. So you cannot make any statement about what they thought nor what they might have thought about ’empowering and socializing’ other peoples. I find Stoddard to be entirely a balanced, fair-thinking man. I just reread Racial Realities In Europe and an understanding of racial composition, in any society, is crucial.

    The issue has to do with how proper boundaries were violated, and about the *philosophy* that allowed this to come about.

    Your mistake here is that you fail to understand that at a certain defined point very bad policy choices were made. This has to do with deliberate projects of social engineering sponsored by corrupt-thinking overclasses.

    There is no person of any color or heritage who cannot become a highly valuable member of this republic. To this point in history, we have mishandled this opportunity many times and have systemically performed disservices to our citizens in allowing and even encouraging the dissolution of families and politicization of our public educational system.

    But this is not precisely the point (though what you say is not false). You assume that those who desire a homogenous society hate other people or wish to do them down. Not so. The issue has to do with what the social engineering that was undertaken in the Sixties more or less has resulted in. Of course a willing person can do great things. But the question has to do with how a people, and how a nation, defines itself. America to some degree, and Europe now, are debating issues that have to do with identity. These are very important questions, even if you do not recognize their importance.

    Yes, today there are many people who are noticing, and complaining, about the bad policy choices made by irresponsible men like yourself. We examine their thinking, as I examine yours, and encounter treachery, be it intended or inadvertent. We notice them come back at us with highfalutin *moral* and *ethical* statement about their ‘righteousness’. But we examine their arguments closely, as I examine yours, and quickly find the flaws. We tell you what those flaws are and you vilify us for it.

    You are a Progressive American and you have incorporated into your very fibers the essential tenets of progressivism.

    Those who claim math, science, and language are racist constructs are the genuine racists, arguing people, any people, who cannot understand alleged race-based white constructs are victims.

    The social wars that your cherished policies are bringing about do seem to involve those you have encouraged to turn against your basic categories and, to put it colorfully, to defecate on them. What you do not see, and what you will not see, is how this was predicted in The Rising Tide of Color. These are *inevitabilities*. One understands this when one examines casual chains.

    To be clear predominantly white societies have much to learn from others and should approach intercultural knowledge with humility and accept the reality European based systems can mute and have muted opportunities broaden and better our society.

    I have been reading Euripides The Bacchae and right now you sound like Pentheus after the disguised Dionysus got him to deck himself up in women’s clothes. Not only have you been tricked but you have fallen under the spell of a necessity that has you in its grip. I suggest you snap out of it.

    You do not have a clear idea of what Occidental Categories are and why they are entirely and absolutely distinct from other categories. You see, you have had taken away from you the understanding of what a jewel-like value these represent. I have done my work though. I can explain it all to you. I know what to value and why.

    It is time for you to go back to school. You need just that education that you say you want to give to ‘the other’. Once you have seen what we really have, and once you understand how hard-fought for it was, then you will understand better what to value and why to value it. You will then understand what must be protected, at any cost. You will then, perhaps, understand why we are in a war.

    This statement that you just made is completely ridiculous. It is sad that you made it. It shows me how bewitched you really are.

    The struggle this republic faces is to regain control of its public education system, depoliticize it, enact policies to improve family culture, and focus on delivering the knowledge and skills to each person to the maximum of their capacity in order to contribute to their lives and the life of the republic.

    Oh I fully understand what your pseudo-conservatism proposes and I think I understand on what it is predicated. And what you are proposing will only come about through a massive strengthening of a central government with hordes of managers and ideologues. What you say, what you recommend, makes a certain sense of course. I mean, it does follow from your other (flawed) predicates.

    The thing is this: many of us will not go along with you because, philosophically, your vision is one of misunderstanding and self-compromise. You do not see this — you will not take the time to educate yourself — but we see it.

    These are high-minded ideals. As Americans under our Constitution, we are called to fulfill them to the best of our ability. Perhaps we will fail or have already failed, but going down taking the right moral, ethical, and civil actions is required.

    The American Civil Religion that you are reciting, and that particular flag that you are saluting, is a Postwar creation of hyper-liberalism. It has a shiny veneer, I admit it, but it has a core with various levels of corruption. The corruption is now becoming visible in the Republic but you cannot see it, because you will yourself not to see and understand.

    This is a unique feature.

  5. Again, knowledge is not wisdom. Adding more citations does not make what you write wise. But it is your highly practiced personal form of virtue signaling.

    Enjoy your lonely, mirrored and gilded labyrinth and the echoes off its golden walls. I’m sure someone will construct a temple to your unassailable mind other than the one you have already constructed in self-congratulatory delusion.

    • Every argument you engage in, you lose. The amazing thing — tragicomical though it is — is you believe, inside of yourself, and in your hear-of-hearts that you should win. But then you don’t win with any clarity. This must be terribly frustrating! What is left is blame, name-calling and all the rest. Like this:

      Enjoy your lonely, mirrored and gilded labyrinth and the echoes off its golden walls. I’m sure someone will construct a temple to your unassailable mind other than the one you have already constructed in self-congratulatory delusion.

      I am not sure how I’d feel about a Temple dedicated to my worship. I’ll get back to you on that one . . .

      But recall what I said earlier:

      We notice them come back at us with highfalutin *moral* and *ethical* statement about their ‘righteousness’. But we examine their arguments closely, as I examine yours, and quickly find the flaws. We tell you what those flaws are and you vilify us for it.

      Adding more citations does not make what you write wise.

      Everyone who went to school had to have encountered Euripides. Everyone should have familiarity with the main Greek tragedies. And I definitely recommend a rereading of The Bacchae because there is so much material there corresponding to our strange present. Hysterical women to be sure possessed by uncertain Powers! But I think that all the major Greek tragedies have long-range psychological import for we Occidentals. The Greek gods, you know, are tangible aspects of this reality, like wind or rain or the storm.

      But now that I think about it King Lear and the reality we are facing of ‘dispossession’ might be a good area to thought-mine in. I get to play Cordelia of course.

      With your propensities you’ll have to play Duke of Albany. (Even I would not ask you to dress up as Goneril.)

        • Wow! I never would have imagined:

          pa·ja·ma (pə-jä′mə, -jăm′ə)
          n. often pajamas
          1. A garment, usually consisting of loose-fitting pants and a shirt or top, worn for sleeping or lounging.
          2. A pair of loose-fitting pants worn in South and Southeast Asia by men and women.

          [Hindi pāyjāmā, pājāmā and Urdu pāyjāma, pājāma, loose-fitting trousers, from Persian pāyjāma, pājāma : pāy, pā, foot, leg (from Middle Persian pāy, foot; see ped- in the Appendix of Indo-European roots) + jāma, garment (from Middle Persian ǰāmag; akin to Greek zōma, loincloth, girdle, and Lithuanian juosti, to gird).]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.