Afterglow

Trump voters want to be anti-establishment?  Well, Trump is now the establishment.  The voters spoke for Clinton, and Trump took over The System.  So, the populists movement can either embrace the civil unrest and attempt to move the right to become an inclusive, un-divisive administration.  Or they can disavow the populist anti-establishment and embrace the System.  They can't have it both ways.

This election is particularly devastating, but not because Trump won.  Sometimes the populist wave takes things in a new direction.  First, the fact that Clinton won the popular vote mkaes it far worse, as the system is clearly rigged against large populations that vote left [1].  Furthermore, the system of checks and balances has broken down.  Taking control of the House and Senate in conjunction with the White House means that a radical policy can be enacted easier than most less-radical administrations.  On top of that, is the un-Constitutional and nihilistic actions of the current Republicans as they block the Supreme Court Justice selection until Trump can deliver their chosen one [2].  All of these aspects have come together in a perfect storm that allows a new, non-governmentally tested administration to freely project a policy against the will of the majority voters.

Protesting the system is probably not the best approach, although it is a perfectly legitimate act of American participation. Using the system is a better way, and it's depressing how many people didn't turn out in a protest vote against Trump (49%).  Hopefully this can evolve into a authentic movement that can work within the political system and save the protest for actaul destructive policies, rather than a legitimate (although biased and skewed), However, the protests are an important sign.  First, they create a message for the Representatives and Senators that they will need to the 80% of the population that did not vote for Trump in the decision making process.  Secondly, this movement will hopefully sustain a momentum that will be ready to act if and when the dominoes start to fall and the Trump administration crosses a line on human or civil rights. That's when the 80% will have to come together in force [3].

The best course of action for Trump at this point is to show (don't tell) how he will be a uniter and a President for everyone. A great start to this would be to dump the awful cabinet choices that are speculated.  Ousting Gingrich, Palin, and Guilanai and instead adding Democrats to the team, possibly even Clinton or Sanders, would be a welcome healing for the divided populace.  Second, he can announce a moderate nomination for the Supreme court that will appease everyone (even better is supporting Obama's nomination, who was universally held in high regard).

[1] I propose, in absence of dismantling the electoral college, that if the winners are split between the popular vote, and the electoral vote, that the popular vote winner should become vice president, and form a dual party administration.

[2] The language here is deliberate.  The Trump movement has explicit overtones of a cult, with its savior ideals.  They will be severely disappointed.

[3] I assume that the 20% who fell for the Trumpist scam will not be able to see reality until after it hits them square in the head.  Hopefully, the scam, the ideological distortion, will not spread as a wave through the general populace, as it did in 1930s Germany.

Midnight at Noon

Seeing Trump's face display on the Empire State Building is unreal.  Welcome to the future - an alternate dystopian future. There are too many scenes of the death of democracy (involving Natalie Portman) in my head. Never before has there been a President elected that hasn't served in government or the military.[1]  240 Years of American history thrown out, but like the Iraq invasion, the twenty-first century is an erasure of American ideals and tradition.  The country I come from is coming to an end, and something new will be beginning.  Anti-intellectualism has won.  Hopefully Mr Trump will not use the nuclear weapons he was so interested in, and hopefully he won't makes us a satellite of Russia, as they seem so happy about the occasion.  And, hopefully there won't be any racial prosecution or concentration camps, which would force me to choose between the clear morally correct humanitarian choice, and protecting my own self and family.  If we avoid those scenarios, we will survive, but in any case we will be different.

Election night 2008 provided an unknown feeling of hope, and now there is clearly a feeling of uncertainty, and in the context of ISIS, Russia, Brexit, there isn't much optimism.  As the world markets have already responded quite negatively, economic slide is already a concern.  The worst part of January 20th, 2017 will be seeing Mr Obama leave after doing such a graceful and respectable job.  Certainly Mrs Clinton was not a likable candidate and she didn't help herself or her reputation any.  But she was highly qualified, knowing how the executive branch works in the White House, how the legislative Senate works, and as Secretary of State was highly experienced in foreign relations.  Furthermore, she was probably the most vetted candidate in history, after seven congressional hearings on fabricated charges, and an FBI investigation which exonerated her.  The worst loss in diverging from that potential branch of history is the lack of another Clinton economic policy involving Bill Clinton, a second chance to bring back some of the success of the 90s.

Instead we get a President that has never answered to anyone and has no record to base expectation.  So far everything Trump has done has been to befit himself at the cost of others.  Unless he somehow identifies himself with the country, I imagine he will do the same to the country. Trump has no idea about working with people, and even with a fully Republican Congress he's not going to get everything he wants. He may not even get much of what he wants, as he learns that it takes compromise, discussion, and working out details, and there are limitations (e.g. finite financing). The "constitutional" candidate has run on a platform on completely  destroying the first amendment in multiple ways (freedom of religion and  freedom of speech and freedom of the press subject to prosecution) as well as the 4th and 8th, and I don't think his "stop and frisk" plan is a great embracement of the 2nd. But then, to the right, it's the truthiness that counts.

I think it's still possible that things won't work out like they seem.  Trump could resign, having won the game, leaving Pence as President.  That's not much better in my opinion, and I certainly don't want a President that got 0 votes in the primary.  He may be a Trojan Horse, playing his deplorable followers, and unveil a left-leaning agenda. Or, he may do something so stupid, so Trumpish that he gets impeached.  The problem isn't Mr Trump.  We have to give him the benefit of the doubt, it's possible he an actually get something productive done [2].  The problem is with the movement he has created (or at least led into emergence) and the people who follow this movement, who think they have license to harass and promote forms of racism and xenophobia (and perhaps ultimately worse, a defense of anti-intellectualism and ***** seizing) .  And, this is not isolated to the U.S. As we see in Europe, the rest of the world is following this model too, swinging to far right  stances that embrace nationalism and cultural and racial difference and hierarchy.  Just like pre-World War I & II,the world is positioning itself into confrontational positions. Now would be the time for a president that would de-escalate and avoid entering that destructive downward slide.

Trump was right.  Elections are rigged, and it would seem he succeeded in proving it. The "left wing" mainstream media really supported Trump by not fully calling out his absurdities and daily lies, and employed Trump paid staffers to spin his campaign.  Then there is the case of the FBI who interfered within 10 days on the election and with no substance caused a tremor in the polling.  Finally, we have Trump's Russian friends who have no doubt disrupted this election.

Now it's up to Trump to do what he said.  Good luck with that.  As things get worse over the next four years, as they undoubtedly will, the blame is on him and the delusion voters.  Be careful what you wish for.  It won't be long until those Russian friends turn on him and exploit Republican emails for their benefit.  They may well be smarter than a Trump administration. His presidency will not be the cakewalk he assumes.  After eight years of endless bitching by the right, it's time to shut up and do it if it's do easy.  Just don't fuck it up like the last Republican administration of  Mr Bush did.  We can't handle another Great Recession (or worse).

The question now becomes, if Trump is serious about acting through anti-establishment circumventions, how much substance does our governmental system have?  Is it a solid structure that operates within fixed and understood parameters?  OR does it just exist as all surface, just functioning through custom and convention -in which case exertion of power has break it, and unravel it to the point of dysfunction.  Let's hope we don't have to test it.


[1] Not only will we have a president with no past experience, but will an extremely unfavorable rating (60%), far higher than Clinton.

[2] The opposite side of this benefit, is that, most importantly, we must be highly vigilante of policies which destroy democracy and human rights, and intervene immediately before the wave of destruction occurs, as happened in the twentieth century Europe.

Fantastic Place

Marillion Live at the Vic Theater, Chicago, 2016.10.27-28

For this US tour, Chicago was Marillion's only two-night stop.  Both the new album and tour have been highly rated by the fan base.  Personally, I found this tour, while always a welcome experience, to be have less of an impact than the last four US tours.  First playing at the Vic seemed "off." The Park West always seems like a home for Marillion, and its a very classy place.  The Vic is a bit more of, um, a historical-garage ambiance. I would expect hip goth bands would be well received there.  And, I thought the sound was not very good- too loud and distorted. 

Secondly, the setlist centered around a large portion of the new album FEAR, the longest and densest three songs.  I would have much preferred to hear the other two tracks - White Paper, and The Leavers, which I consider the highlights of the album.  They are the most "musical" and Marillionesque, as they don't seem to try so hard to conform to the thematic theme of the album.  Hearing the three 15 minute epics left little room in the set for material from the other 17 albums.  Moreover, keeping the set relatively similar both nights seemed a little repetitive. Although we heard everything played on the tour, (Edit: such as Kayleigh/Lavender, played only in Toronto).  This consistency throughout the tour is a little disappointing after the interesting 2016 South American tour, which featured some rare tracks, such as Afraid of Sunrise and Dry Land. Additionally, the constant inclusion of the long Invisible Man and Neverland take up another considerable part of the setlist. These shows make five times (in three tours) in a row that they have opened with Invisible Man, and it seems like its time for a rest.  Hearing each of these five mentioned tracks once would have allowed for another hour of material that was rehearsed from the South American tour. Marillion is now in the unenviable state that most long-time artists are in, with such a large back catalogue.  Rather than falling into a greatest hits act, and still producing interesting new material, a lot of the latest release is played, and some early tracks have to find their way in to please the casual old fan.  But that leaves a vast collection of middle material forgotten. However, its always great to see the band be able to play anything, and as well received as the new album is, many people found the show to be a excellent one.

The first night had the band in the most relaxed state I've seen them, with H going off on an extended ad-libbed Three Minute Boy.  This looseness came back to haunt the band on the second night, when Power went bad (either through timing or monitors) and H stormed off the stage.  They picked up with the next song and tightened up, but there still seemed (at least as an audience member) for soem tension.  Given the difficulties that Marillion has had in returning to the US in the last few years, along with the apparent situation of less turn-out, the status of future US shows seems in question now more than ever. Hopefully, a new tour, now slated for 2018, will go ahead. The stand-out performances from these shows would have to be Fantastic Place, Sugar Mice, King, and, as always This Strange Engine.

10.27:
The Invisible Man/ Power/ Fantastic Place/ Living In F E A R/ Mad/ Afraid of Sunlight/ The New Kings/ Quartz/ Neverland/ El Dorado/ Easter/ Three Minute Boy
10.28:
The Invisible Man/ Sounds That Can't Be Made/ Living In F E A R/ Sugar Mice/ The New Kings/ Man of a Thousand Faces/ King/ Neverland / El Dorado/ This Strange Engine

Hope for the Future / Fuck Everyone and Run

The Great Wall of China
What A waste of Time
The Maginot Line
What a waste of time. 

It appears Marillion's new album Fuck Everyone and Run may hit the nail right on the head in terms of the Zeitgeist (more on the album later.) Contrasting this title with their 1997 song Hope for Future, really shows the change in times, clearly for the worst. I'm not optimistic about the future, especially after yesterday, and it would seem the predictions of Marillion, as well as others from Nostradamus to George Friedman [1] are coming to fruition.  We have become so over-reactionary that every little event of violence by someone of Non-Western origin is immediately cast as terrorism. [2] But not every unfortunate incident of potentially intense violence is terrorism [3]. Some are simply violent acts committed by homicidal lunatics, who may or may not be religious.  But, in any case, they are homicidal maniacs first.

It seems certain that whatever conflict arises out of the current tension, there will be those who lose who don't deserve to. Not only the innocent people who happened to be born a different race [4], but those humanitarians that try to de-escalate the tension in order to protect undeserving people on both sides.  As seen, in current online discussions, the hatred for each side is so strong that it will be propelled at anyone who tries to question what is going on.  As we spiral around history, there always has to be the Other - coming to take our joy, one who can't be negotiated with, but is 100% alien and must be eradicated. While ISIS might fall factually into this category, the prevailing opinion is to include all Muslims in this category.   I wonder what would happen if Sting rewrote his 1986 song Russians into "Muslims," something like this: 

In Europe and America, there's a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets
ISIS said we will bury you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
It would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Muslims love their children too

How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer's deadly toy
There is no monopoly in common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Muslims love their children too

There is no historical precedent
To put the words in the mouth of the President
There's no such thing as a winnable war
It's a lie we don't believe anymore
Mr. Trump says we will protect you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Muslims love their children too

We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
What might save us, me, and you
Is if the Muslims love their children too

Certainly the message would be the same  -  "the Muslims love their children too," it would be timely and accurate, and I fear, far less acceptable.  The Muslim scare seems deeper rooted than the Red Scare and anti-communist Reagan years.  Which goes to show the "political correctness" of the right.  If you dare to throw out words like Islam, or Marxism, you are immediately shot down, dismissed and discredited as you try to make as serious intellectual point.  They are buzz words used to differentiate the other and cannot be used for any correct point - regardless of the facts of the situation.
The complete alienation of the Other is apparent whenever they try to take a positive position.  If BLM protests, they are told to be peaceful. If they are peaceful during the national anthem, they are told to stop being disrespectful.  If the Somali community doesn't publicly denounce Muslim violence, they are  accused of quietly supporting it.  If they do publicly denounce it, they are told to shut up and go away.  The divide will only get bigger, as the extreme right now has a voice on the public stage, they will continue to expand and veer farther right. They are waiting and hoping for more of the so-called "colossal" attacks, like 9/17, so they can respond with ever more retaliation, and prove their resistance to the Other.   It wasn't that we underestimated Trump. It is that we (and Trump) underestimated his followers.  Perhaps things will get better in 50 days.  But the way things are sliding, that is becoming less and less likely.  At which point the real divide will begin, and we'll all have a better understanding of 1930s Germany. Let's hope we don't have to choose sides and get caught in the middle while trying to take the moral high ground.


[1] STRATFOR's analysis of Russia, Turkey, etc, is increasingly seeming more likely after the last 3 years.

[2] Acts of mass violence, when perpetrated by Whites are not called Christian terrorism, or Western terrorism. Terrorism is limited to the Other. The way "terrorism" is used/understood (not the way it should be defined) is when the Other attacks Us. So, Colored people are terrorists, whites are criminals [see 4A].

[3] Violence- the kind of a homicidal maniac is a necessary quality of a terrorist, but it isn't sufficient.  Terrorism is more - it is ideological, and furthermore has an agenda to achieve.  It is therefore planned, organized and coordinated, to have any effect as terrorism.  If we start to call any violent act by someone who has an ideologically agenda (almost everyone) then the term loses all meaning.  This is a disservice to those in New York, Paris, Israel,/Gaza, etc. There are real terrorists out there- evil people - and we must not dilute that fight by calling every criminal act of a brown person terrorism.

[4] I realize "Muslim" isn't a race, but then race is an artificial construct - we're all the same species [4A].  When we're talking about Muslims,we're not talking about white Westerners that have converted. We mean Arabs, or Africans.  Like Jews, Muslim is a term for a culture that includes attributes of geography, history, and physical features, all united through a religion.  One is born into that religion as a part of their heritage, there isn;t much transfer in and out of such religious thought. Since those in that culture share "family resemblances" of traits, it makes sense to classify them in contrast to Western (mostly Christian) groups, through "race"for lack of a better term.

     [4A] The Irish and Italians used to be non-white, as were some German descents, and if German isn't white, then what is? But, all of these Europeans became white through common use which expanded and changed the definition.  Which culture associated with terrorism has a drink named after them?  The "Irish Car Bomb" has become so normalized that the Irish terrorists aren't terrorists anymore (because they're now white).

Fortunate Son

What is patriotism? Is is loyalty to the current governmental system - the administration in power and whatever is decided to be the current course of action? Or is it loyalty to the Constitution itself - the fundamental blueprint that should pervade all that government does?  It can't be the first, for when the true "patriots" - the right, right?- speak, they consistently condemn the government in power. Certainly, and specifically, they attack the left leaning politicians.  But more than that, they denounce the very idea of government. So it must be loyalty to the country, not the government.  The country, whatever that is- but if it can be defined by one thing, -is the Constitution.  Which guarantees the right of free expression.  One can argue that being "disrespectful" during a song -and we are just talking about a song and a gesture - is effectively denouncing the principle which gives one the right to denounce it - the very basis for dissent undermines and unravels itself.  But, the inverse is at least equally true. That free expression is using the principle in the way it was intended, thereby validating it. If you can't actually use the principle, then using it doesn't invalidate it since it doesn't really exist or stand for anything. Sitting down in defiance doesn't actually protest the Constitution, it just protests the application of it, reinforcing that the spirit of it should override the letter of the law.  Therefore, it seems that actualizing the rights and freedoms guaranteed - particularly when that is done through heartfelt conviction and a belief that it will make the country better and more aligned with the original vision - is more patriotic than blindly following what everyone else does because they think it's the proper patriotic behavior.  That is just the opposite side of "political correctness," following a set of rules to appear correct while rejecting freedom.  I'm astounded by libertarian-leaning individuals who champion the rights of the individual when they condemn dissent.  I don't think the Nazi analogy is that far off, when we are talking about forcing people to worship the country in a systematic and un-criticizable way.  Real freedom only matters when it is opposed by others - not supported by mindless conformists- the critical dissenter is the one promoting the freedom of the individual and is the real patriot.

I Can't Stop Thinking About You

After a 13 year wait, we finally have the new single from Sting- I Can't Stop Thinking About You.  On the plus side, it's upbeat, it doesn't sound anything like his last two albums, and it's not a sappy love song [1].  The essential band members Dominic and  Vinnie are present, although David's keys are gone. [2] Musically, this seems like a progression of 2005's Broken Music Tour, all done on strings with the addition of a second guitar, now worked into new material.  Given the presence of Josh Freese on the album, I wonder if some of this didn't originate in those sessions. In terms of tempo, Thinking fits alongside Next To You, which Sting rediscovered for the 2005 tour. Lyrically, this track exists along with If I Ever Lose My Faith in You and contains similar imagery to tracks from Mercury Falling, particularly The Hounds of Winter and the style of 25 to Midnight.  Theological considerations similar to All This Time can also be discerned. Sting's music has always struck me as more relevant in the fall and winter (with, perhaps, The Police more compatible with Summer) and here Sting continues his exploration of an existential lack in relation to winter.  Just this week I was, through an event of synchronicity, thinking about the book The Heart of a Lonely Hunter, which gets worked into the lyrics, and always seems to make a good metaphor. This track suggest that the new album will not have the layered sonic complexity of his masterpiece albums (Nothing Like the Sun, The Soul Cages), or their refined lyrics.  But it is a good reboot, ending the overproduced yet flat sound and writing of the last two albums, and the non-rock endeavors of his last four releases.  It is a good indicator of Sting 3.0, and that might be the best thing to come from this return to the world, out of the hyper-esoteric and eccentric desert of the last decade.

[1] Unlike something like Whenever I Say Your Name
[2] The keyboards - particularly David's - were noticeably absent on the 2016.08.31 performance of All This Time.  Hopefully the tour will feature the re-inclusion of David (and Jo and Peter) to fully perform tracks from other albums.  Although, as mentioned, he got by on the Broken Music Tour and might try something different .

The Hitchhiker's Guide to Twenty-First Century America

With the absurdity level of the 2016 election continuing to increase, I think it is best to look back for some perspective.  Here are some of Douglas Adams' thoughts about president and ruler from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only six people in the entire Galaxy understood the principle on which the Galaxy was governed, and they knew that once Zaphod Beeblebrox had announced his intention to run as President it was more or less a fait accompli: he was the ideal presidency fodder.

The President in particular is very much a figurehead { he wields no real power whatsoever.He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. On those criteria. Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the most successful Presidents the Galaxy has ever had {he has already spent two of his ten Presidential years in prison for fraud. Very very few people realize that the President and the Government have virtually no power at all, and of these very few people only six know whence ultimate political power is wielded. Most of the others secretly believe that the ultimate decision-making process is handled by a computer. They couldn't be more wrong.

Only six people in the Galaxy knew that the job of the Galactic President was not to wield power but to attract attention away from it. . . Zaphod Beeblebrox was amazingly good at his job. . .The fact that he had become President of the Galaxy was frankly astonishing, as was the manner of his leaving the post. Was there a reason behind it? There would be no point in asking Zaphod, he never appeared to have a reason for anything he did at all: he had turned unfathomably into an art form. He attacked everything in life with a mixture of extraordinary genius and naive incompetence and it was often difficult to tell which was which.

It is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

The Ruler of the Universe is a man living in a small shack on a world that can only be reached with a key to an unprobability field or use of an Infinite Improbability Drive. He does not want to rule the universe and tries not to whenever possible, and therefore is by far the ideal candidate for the job.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This foresight by Adams only highlights his intelligence and awareness of devolution in the process of government. In the postmodern world of superficiality and spectacle, the real projections of power become the inverse of the apparent nodes, existing at the invisible bottom of the superstructure, not at the top.  The president here is all surface, an attraction of spectacle, while the ruler lives in hidden isolation behind the scenes.  Those who do not want power are those that are most deserving of it and can yield it most judiciously and effectively, while those that want it are the most corruptible and least likely to be "objectively" good at it.

In application, this can quite clearly be applicable to Trump and his postmodern, reality-TV spectacle approach, which overrides serious, thoughtful, calculated, and determined practice of governance. For those that think a rejection of the establishment is the crucial factor in contemporary politics, I contend that that approach is, at best, just more superficial spectacle, becoming farther removed from the real serious business of governing.  At worst (and this is becoming actualized with the elimination of Sanders), it is just a more extreme form of the Tea Party movement.  It is just an evolution of the 2010 election which sought to block President Obama at every turn.  Now it is looking to completely bypass the democratic process of compromise and agreement and replace it with the singular perspective of an extreme political movement.  Before a democrat became president, when was the establishment bad? Reagan was establishment, and the Bushes were just continuations of that line.  But, if a black liberal (through accusation anyway) becomes the leader of the free world (twice), then the establishment becomes the problem.  This election was been one continual highlighting of what a circus the anti-establishment is.  If we could throw out this distorted notion, maybe we can get back the serious issues.

For those that think government is the problem, I invite you take a time machine back to the 90s.  There were still serious issues that needed to be solved, but we were on the right road and had a good start.  American life looked ever more promising until being derailed in 2000.  Those that continue to perpetuate this myth fall into two groups - first, conservatives who have deluded themselves into forgetting the Clinton era America (by propagating a Bush-hero myth and transferring the problems of the 2000s back to an "origin" in the 90s, thereby erasing the massive failure that was the Bush administration and projecting all of his failings on to Clinton.  The second group are the millennials, many of whom were too young to understand the Clinton years, and are now being fed Fox history to rewrite and degrade that era.  Their criticisms reveal a great misunderstanding of recent history.

On a deeper level, we must separate the President from the American System.  There is a course that America sets through history, and this will not be changed by an alternate presidential choice.   Does anyone really think that drone strikes will be different depending on H Clinton, or Trump? Or that Sanders would have been any different?  Or Johnson? At this level, the precedent has been set, and will continue autonomously, or decided by people whose job it is to keep it going.  Presidents may change history on a larger level, by invading sovereign nations under false pretenses which destroy 200 years of American policy [1].  But, generally, that which they have an effect on is much smaller, and more domestic.  Tax rates for those who depend on every dollar, and the general tone of what is acceptable in society are the real things at risk.  Economic policy which favors the dominant oligarchy is self contained and will continue on.  And geopolitically, the America-as-singular-super-power will continue on unabated.  No one within the system is going to risk implementing something which might impede this course.  Who we choose for president should be based on who has the best temperament to embody what we want America to persist and present itself as. That person should be presidential as an individual.  And, they should be chosen on what tone we want to domestic policy to reflect, in ways that shape American value over time, making slight corrections to the course.  But, we should not vote thinking that the President makes decisions that decide every minute policy.  That would in actuality be bad. Very bad.  That would lead straight in totalitarianism.  But, that is the picture that Trump is presenting - that he will be able to change every little thing that makes America not great.  By immersing himself in this distortion, he is either a scam artist, or actually ignorant and incompetent.

Michael Weiss has written a very interesting analysis of Trump in  "Donald Trump’s Anti-Semitic Mob Came for Me." He also evaluates the placement of trump in the postmodern age:

"Trump is everything and anything to this camp because he is the first postmodern authoritarian in American history, a man for whom truth is a relative concept defined exclusively in relation one’s perception of the central, overriding object: the authoritarian himself . . . Trump’s positions are wildly inconsistent and galvanizing at the same time . . . He thinks America under Obama has become a weakling superpower that doesn’t stand up to its manifold adversaries, but he wants to destroy NATO."

Furthermore, he makes a enlightened connection between the relativistic nature of postmodernism and the essentialist conservative position:

"Postmodernism got its fullest articulation on the European left, but it’s always been at home on the international right: its forerunner theorist was Martin Heidegger, who infamously embraced National Socialism, which of course didn't stop him from becoming an icon to French radicals once Hitler was defeated. The internet has only given these fiefdoms of infinite “interpretation”—climate change denialists, the anti-vaxxers, chemtrails obsessives—more stridency and organization."

The postmodern rejection of Truth and its replacement with unending layers of interpretation can indeed serve the right just as well as the left.  Weiss insight-fully identifies the Trump as the first candidate to fully embrace this disconnect and use the contradictory nature of its structure as an advantage. One thing is certain, politics will not be the same as we shift toward a new epoch that overturns modern structures.  The nation state has become increasingly more irrelevant as groups like ISIL exert influence, and now the very nature of the politician and the political movement is evolving in to new types of entities.


[1] It is very conceivable that The (American) System would have found a way to create a great Middle Eastern Intervention without Bush and his personal and enthusiastic interest in Iraq, but it would have been very different under Gore, who would have been reluctant and would have appeared through his hesitation as weak and indecisive, just as Obama has been presented. However, if the US is going to make giant international moves without regard for actuality, I would prefer they are done less arrogantly and with more forethought.  A much better chess-board story could have been fabricated to prompt US action.

Driving the Last Spike

Since the Republican side of the election has devolved into its own phenomena, its time to look at the Democratic side, which has unfortunately started to fragment as well. Like the case with Trump, it is disconcerting to see the energy of many who support Sanders, which can be not only negative, but lead down an unproductive road.  While Clinton is disappointingly not a core liberal, but is effectively right-of-center, Sanders occupies an untenable space on the left.  Sanders' problem is that he is too liberal and not liberal enough at the same time. He wants democratic socialist programs, but would have the costs passed on to those who can't afford them. While his positions are laudable, they are suspended in an idealistic worldview.  Single-payer healthcare and publicly funded higher education are absolutely the goals we should be aiming for, but its unrealistic at this point to put that burden on the entire populace that has already suffered under austerity.  We can't simply shift to a system that exists at point Z, while we are sitting at point A (and we're probably no longer even at A after the 2001-09 economic catastrophe).  A 2% tax increase across the board to cover public healthcare would be a welcome exchange, but Sander's plan raises at least 8.5% on the middle class, who are already drowning from a lack of relief that only exists for the top and bottom classes.  The average taxpayer would see an increase of $4500 in taxes per year (offset somewhat by the elimination of health insurance), which is simply not acceptable or economic advantageous. Sanders would be better off advocating a Universal Basic Income,to stabilize lower incomes and provide across the board sustainability first, followed by funding through elimination of regressive tax policies, the foremost being the home interest deduction [1]. For instance, publicly funded college education is in itself a complex problem. While Europe can sustain a system which  provides a completely tuition-free education, and can additionally pay a living stipend, their entire cultural attitude seems aimed at social reinvestment.  Without question education costs have soared past income increases and have shifted an extreme burden on to those looking to advance, but the current generation in America wants an education that will maximize their earnings without any kind of debt payment, while they expect to be ably to buy a new car straight out of high school without significant work advancement (and yet claim they can't afford to pay $1 to buy a song [2]).  At best, I would suggest a federal loan program which is dismissed upon completion of a degree in other to maximize collective public value, but again it is complex, and an argument for another day.

The only reasonable course I can see is that of Hillary Clinton.  She is the establishment candidate, but I'm not sure why that is a bad thing, as the far right-shift of the Republican party, and its Tea party coup, has shown that the status quo looks pretty good.  Clinton is not a particularly likable person, as many, many people have asserted without hesitation.  I'm quite sure she is a narcissistic pain-in the-ass, but I'm not sure that's a liability given the current relations between President and, well, everybody else given the current adversarial climate (although it is an unfortunate legacy in the Democratic lineage, given the last three Democratic presidents.)  For those who say she is dishonest, I don't really doubt that either.  She is a politician, and if anyone thinks there is a true honest candidate anywhere in the system (even the outsiders) and that everything isn't spin, they are truly deluded.  This is politics, persuading others to follow your point-of-view  It is necessarily ideological and non-objective.  However, I think that Clinton is the one candidate who presents a what-you-see-is-what-you-get choice.  She will have no surprises, and if her policies are anything like her husbands there can be no real complaints.  While his third-way economics was a conservative approach to left-wing democracy, the country did fare well under his leadership and provided a preferable ground in contrast to today's challenges.  Clinton would be a continuation of Obama and similarly would embody some conservative aspects that reach back to Eisenhower, but it would be a far superior position to the radical right-wing approach that has accelerated since the Reagan-era. 

For those that say this isn't enough, that we need real progressivism now, that it's all or nothing, I can only think this is more of the impatient, "right now," immediate reward, generation.  But real politics takes time and takes compromise.  The enthusiastic Sanders' supporters need to realize this (and by the way being a member of Congress for 25 years not only screams "establishment," it provokes the question of why hadn't he attempted to advance these positions through congressional procedure.)  I don't want to be a moderate, but given the limited alternatives, and facing the possibility that a strong push to the left will only empower a more radicalized counter-strike from the right to overcompensate.  Rather we must extend beyond the first step that is the Affordable Healthcare Act and advance toward an affordable single-payer system, while providing economic relief for the lower 80% that has been squeezed over the last 40 years, through extended child-care credits, family leave time, etc. Only once we stabilize the economic conditions can we then move further towards a more European-structured model of education and additional social welfare (and do it better than Europe does.)

[1] This is how other first-world countries do it- you can't have everything, but they prioritize (as any rational person would) healthcare over giving someone a tax break on their weekend or vacation home. 
[2] "Back in my day" CDs were $18, so it took 4.5 hours of work to purchase one, now one can buy a full digital album for $8.99, roughly one hour of work at most places, but puzzlingly, they consider that an unreasonable financial burden. Now, get off my lawn.

The Damage

So here we are again, after two days days of the same tired, old, rhetoric I have to address gun violence again.


I. Psychology & Reality
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Nope,  this is misunderstanding of thought and event.  An act requires intent and means.  The actual event which kills a victim is a physical chain: looking back at this chain victim>wound>bullet>gun>shooter.  The kill is done by the bullet fired from the gun (both as designed to perform this purpose). The gun is the means used by the shooter to turn intent into event. So, while the shooter originates the act, it is the gun which transforms it into a physical event with a causal result.  Furthermore, many killings are the result of loaded guns left available for children to find, which they improperly discharged.  There is no intent at all in this event.  It would be stupid to claim that in this case "children kill people." The act is reduced to an event, and it is only the means which come into play, which makes it far more relevant than intent.

Without the means, the event would not occur. Like any piece of technology, the gun transforms the individual into a cybernetic being.  That is, it enhances the capability of the human form.  The mind controls the gun, but the gun enacts the thought.  Without the presence of the weapon, the form capable of exerting this power does not obtain.  Modern NRA-style slogan thinking is contrary to historic thought such as the samurai code, which views the sword as doing the killing, not the warrior.

Those who are arguing to combat ideology rather than activity have it backwards.  Freedom must apply to thought before action.  Rather than restrict thought, which it cannot and should not do, for ethical and political reasons, the law must prevent, to the best of its ability, the realization of thought into malicious action,  There is no sense in allowing evil actions, which have real world consequences, to occur for the sake of freedom, while restricting and controlling thought, which even when it is evil or malicious cannot have a consequential effect on a victim without realization.

II. Laws
"Just because something is illegal doesn't mean someone will stop doing it."  Agreed, but this is a misunderstanding of law.  Laws are not designed to make an individual pre-examine their actions, reflect, and then decide what is in their best interest - at least in immediate situations of violence, desperate acts, or willful disregard for social good. A common psychological property of the criminally-minded is the lack of understanding between cause and effect. So, laws are in no way going to help them make immediate decisions.  But, legislation does have an effect on the physical reality which provides the conditions for the act to emerge.  In this case, the law can hinder the proliferation of guns which get into the hands of the shooter, and limit his ability to carry out the malicious act. The law deals with the physical reality, the objective, not the mental, which is an isolated subjective.

"Banning doesn't matter, people will get them anyway." Then why should we make anything illegal?  There are all kinds of laws limiting personal arms.  Fully automatic weapons, explosives, etc are strictly regulated and not easily available even in black markets.  There is clearly a divide between what we would call military grade weapons and personal arms.  Within the fuzzy middle space, the exact position of the line seems too inclusive. It is easy to put hunting rifles and many classes of handgun for personal protection on one side, and F-16s and AH-64 Apaches on the other side (even though I would like to personally own these, military grade equipment is not defensible as personal arms, existing without being subjected to a large chain of oversight).  In the middle, resides arms like the AR-15.  Historically considered personal and constitutionally legal because of its semi-automatic nature, I think this class of weapons has been inappropriately categorized on the wrong side of the line.  Classifying arms as personal or military along an automatic/semi-automatic divide is misguided.  The argument revolving around "Assault rifles" is claimed to be an aesthetic one by gun advocates.  Apparently gun enthusiasts who shoot what they consider to be basic rifles like to make their guns look like "assault weapons"  Why? To play soldier?  This isn't an innocent game, and not the world of make-believe.  But, I agree that we should not be legislating arms based on what they look like.  Why are we not discussing muzzle velocity, firing rate, magazine capacity, etc?  These are the factors that increase lethality.  And it is lethality that should determine the class of weapon.  The M-16, the standard of the US military for decades, has similar parameters and uses semi-automatic and three-round burst modes, which have been concluded to be of more accurate use.  A weapon with automatic mode does not make it an appreciably different type of weapon. With something that can fire 13 rounds per second, the technical aspects of the firing pin are irrelevant, the result of of the weapon as it is are very deadly.  I would like to hear from veterans, who used their gun as their most significant tool in doing their job, in regards to why that tool, which needs to be as lethal and effective as it can be, is something that needs to exist in civilian life? I would think that of anyone, a soldier would best understand the difference between combat and civilized life, and why such arms should only reside in the hands of highly trained professionals.

I concede that violent events can never be pre-neutralized, but the point of living within the safety of civilization is that the laws will reduce the range of possible events, and eliminate the likelihood of the most egregious ones.  Someone can always inflict harm with a screwdriver (maybe), or a knife.  But using a melee weapon limits the damage, maybe one or two kills are possible with several wounded.  Homemade explosive devices and handguns slightly more.  Comparing the Boston Bombing: two bombs only yielded three deaths.  When we get to high-lethality rifles, then we start looking at much higher death tolls, and this is the point where we must address public safety. It does not have to be an all-or-nothing result, but rather eliminate the arms which produces the most public threat but produces the least social good, without hindering the activities of hunting and reasonable self-defense engaged in by qualified citizens. [1]

III: Rights
In the conflict of rights, we must give priority to the actual before the potential found only in hypotheticals.  Why should one’s right to be safe from an actual threat be callously and negligently ignored in favor of the rights of someone else who might one day need to exercise their own rights to avoid threat?  What is immediate and active must be considered first without being subjugated to the passive world of speculation.  The toll of the lives that will be lost in events in the near future can be mitigated rather than ignored in favor of someone's future attempt at self-defense, which can be prepared through other means.  The right to life far exceeds the secondary additions to the constitution which produces a public threat, a threat to that most basic right.

_________________________________________________________________________________

The events of Orlando have reminded me of these Marillion lyrics, which mostly pertain to the Cold War, but still have significance and resonate about the loss resulting from the conflict with those who emanate an adverse ideology filled with anger and hate, and externalize that internal lack through violence and nihilistic destructive impulses:

And we wake up without you
We wake up without you
With a hole in our hearts

You mad dog shaven head bottle-boy freaks
In Martens and khaki, drunk on sake
You stare at yourself in the cruel flush of dawn
Terrified, sunken eyed, withered and drawn
The butcher, the baker, the munitions maker
The over-achiever, the armistice breaker
The freebase instructor, the lightning conductor
The psycho, the sailor, the tanker, the tailor
The black market mailer
The quick and the dead
The spotlight dancer
The quick and the dead
We wake up without you
With a hole in our hearts

-Marillion “Berlin” 1989

[1] It's very clear that individuals can be denied constitutional rights.  Felons, drug addicts, mental disabled people are all excluded.  I don't see why stronger psychological testing of gun purchasers, and a stricter mental requirement, would be any different legally

They Were Seven Facing Three

So after the long wait, we finally see the Tower of Joy event.  The most interesting element of this scene was how much it deviated from A Game of Thrones (Book I of A Song of Ice and Fire).   This is notable, because neither telling of the event can be said to be reliable.  The original is a dream of Ned's, where some things happen "as it was in life," and others are shadowy events from a dimming memory.  The final filmed version is a vision of Bran's, which may be a viewing of the past, a new branching of time where Bran could potentially interact, or some kind of simulacrum that is not completely faithful to the original events.  My notion of the event has been this fan made video from the audio-book which faithfully portrays the description in Ned's dream:

Which is real?  This is one more occurrence which reveals the postmodern zeitgeist that A Song of Ice and Fire originates from, and which is perhaps becoming foregrounded as we finish the filmed series.

S06E03:

 

Fear of [an Intelligent] Planet

This week's uproar about the possible bias in Facebook's posting of trending articles  provokes a response of: so what? Who cares?  The fairness Doctrine was abandoned in 1987 and since then the conservatives have done everything to exploit its demise.  This is clearly demonstrated by Fox News and the conservative monopoly on AM Radio.  There is no responsibility for any media outlet to present opposing views, or give equal time.  Since Facebook is not the only website, there are plenty of alternatives to find.  If one is depending of Facebook for a total information picture, then they are already a lost cause.

The political realm has been dumb-ed down by the proliferation of political BS without substance.  In the world of social media, accuracy, evidence, and logical argumentation have become lost. A case in point, here is one particularly unintelligent meme:

Stupidity warning!

It is a self-refuting attempt at an argument which blatantly fails. First, the Obama emblem is a generalization (in a piece trying to condemn generalizations about conservatives).  As an attempt to point out liberal hypocrisy, it is pre-framed to conclude that the liberal position is wrong.  By reasoning that the Islamic position of bigotry should be condemned rather than apologized for, then any actually (if not imaginary) similar conservative position should be condemned as well (which is not the case on the right).  Conversely,  if conservatives should be allowed to freely hold their views, then any similar Muslim views should be freely allowed (the second part of which is clearly not held by conservatives who want to remove all Muslim legitimacy).

Either bigotry is okay, or it is not.  It if is okay, there is no further point to arguing and the anti-liberal position can be labeled as such.  If it is not okay (and the liberals give Islam an unfair pass) then the Republican position presented is also bigotry. A further problem is the equating of Republicanism to Islamic belief (it would have been better to use "Conservative Christian").  They operate on two very different levels of ideology.  A political position is not like a religious belief, which is far more fundamental, and as transcendentally proposed truth, exists deeper.  It is part of one's being and, as it cannot be changed, constitutes identity.  This is why it is a protected class, (like sexuality), unlike political belief, which is fluid and can be changed over time through thoughtful reassessment (there is no cost in the redefining of this world, as it is not a fundamental truth, but contingent). This is significant here, because how one responds to two different types of bigotry is important, and they should not be equated and responded to in the same way.  Both utterances by the liberal denounce "-phobia," so there is consistency, these denouncements both concern fundamental identity (religion, or orientation)  The liberals do not concern themselves with avoiding Republican-ophobia, because it is a different kind of entity, not existing as an inherent property of an autonomous being.  There is admittedly a difficulty in embracing Islamic ideals while condemning anti-bigotry (although that doesn't apply to all Muslims - again, another generalization), but one can avoid dismissing an entire religion while engaging with the specific internal elements which they find problematic.

The defender can say that the Republican position is not really the same as the Islamic one, and that it is just a liberal construction.  After Cruz praised a country for executing gays, (as well as Trump's statements) this seems problematic, but the better argument would be to show why Republicanism is not bigoted, and the burden of proof shifts to the defender.  But, apparently, it is easier to do drive-by attacks on liberalism than construct a solid and valid argument.

As for the liberal response, it must be remembered that it emanates from an American point of view.  That is we live under the Constitution which promotes freedom of thought.  The first actual conclusion we can draw from the meme is that Islamic thought deserves as much respect and autonomy as the Republican position.  We have freedom of religion and if its okay for the conservative Christian to hold views that may be bigoted, then it must be alright for Muslim's to hold their own views.  This is the main problem that the liberal sees happening, and when Republican candidates and endless social media masses argue that certain religions don't have protected status, there is a real problem that the liberal is challenging.  As citizens under the Constitution, we have a legal system constructed to prevent religious beliefs from overtaking the law.  This is why the liberal does not particularly worry about the Muslim position.  The conservative one, on the other hand, exists as an ideology within the political system, and has an effect on the law, resulting in real life discrimination and persecution.  That is why it is more of a priority to challenge.  What Muslims do in their own countries may be reprehensible, but we are not in a position to change it, it is part of the fabric of their social construction.  But what conservatives do here, trying to impose a theocracy, is an immediate threat.  A conservative America that does what Middle Eastern theocracy do is exactly what is to be avoided.  I don't think there is evidence for liberals apologizing to Muslims for their beliefs, only arguing that they should have the same freedom of religion and thought.  If a Muslim was to try to impose bigoted legislation, as the Republicans actually do,  I fully expect the liberal response would be the same as has been.

Ultimately, a better track to take would be to ask why liberals don't challenge the Islamic bigotry as much as its conservative  counterpart, rather than assume liberals are apologetic.  As argued here, they are two different things (as far as our legal experience here in America)  Substituting Conservative Christian instead of Republican would eliminate some discrepancy, but since Christians (of this sort) do not acknowledge Islam as an equally valid viewpoint, that doesn't really help their case, and as there is a Christian wing of the party, but no Muslim wing (of any party), the Islamic view doesn't factor into legislative concerns.  What is ultimately important is the actual effect that bigoted views have in practicality, rather than the ideological presence they have in thought, and it is the conservative position which exerts practical damage.  It is a free country, hold bigoted views if you want, just don't try to enforce them in society. While this cartoon tries to reveal a superficial conservative position held by liberals, it really reveals a spuerficial understanding of liberalism by conservatives.

White Noise

Reading Don Dellilo's White Noise on the thirtieth anniversary of the Chernobyl accident, I think Delillo had a good sense of the world to come.  Ecological and apocalyptic disasters are a primary trope of postmodern literature, but given the proximity of the release of this work with the Ukrainian event it seems particularly relevant.  This novel basically takes the usual postmodern understanding of the loss of our existential connection to life and its replacement with late capitalist consumer culture, and works it into a story.  A little too explicitly - to the point where Delillo essentially shouts out "this is a commentary on postmodern culture."  Unfortunately, as a literary narrative it is pretty awful, the dialogue presenting something that is nowhere near realistic, and is just bland inhuman characters asking each inane question in response to every statement. "Why?" "Why?"  Now, I'll assume this is intentional to portray the unfeeling disconnect between the characters and their life and the world around them.  But it makes for terrible writing, and terrible storytelling.  This was disappointing, as this is supposed to be a high-mark of postmodern commentary, a goal-point for all subsequent authors to strive to hit.  But I don't think there is anything here that Douglas Coupland or David Foster Wallace hasn't done better, and with more aesthetic effect. He may have paved the way for the rest, and this work seems to have had a lasting influence.  But, I hope future encounters with his work, including the latest, will be more readable

Red Sector A

It seems significant that several of the most prominent television programs currently produced are dystopian.  Beyond the Walking Dead, now we have Colony and the Man in the High Castle.  While the first merely portrays the intrusion of the Real into the conventional construct we live in, the last latter two inject indicative political frameworks. Colony, despite its perhaps lackluster execution, diminishes that Real (an alien invasion), leaving it in the background. The resulting focus is life in an authoritarian occupation. Alarmist hyperbolism of the currently perceived dangers aside, these narratives seem particularly applicable to the zeitgeist.  The future certainly seems uncertain, with the ever present feeling that things could be much worse.  High Castle  (a historical/sci-fi/postmodern Game of Phones exploration of the nature of reality and Baudrillardian authenticity) suggests that the world we know does have to be the way it is, just as the characters in that world learn the world does not need to be the way it is.  Both of these authoritarian worlds go beyond the normalization of totalitarianism to show the alternatives tensions straining the family dynamic.  Colony's Will joins the occupation to achieve security for the family, while his wife Katie joins the resistance to secure a free future.  Similarly, High Castle's Juliana joins the resistance to find answers from the other world, while Frank just wants to escape the ongoing torment of the totalitarian regime.  What should one to in these situations? Both of these shows present the possibility that even as bad as things are, when change is injected they can get far worse.

Perhaps the most important outcome of these shows is how they draw our internal views out of reality for examination.  Man in the High Castle's ungrounded world of power, an ongoing Game of Thrones-esque Foucauldian contest of power centers, throws motivation and conventional right and wrong into the blender until the point that we can even find empathy for one (or even the one [1]) enforcing a Nazi establishment.  Even more striking is the ever present forum debates concerning the anarchic  Walking Dead between the vast majority supporting the pragmatic too-far-gone view of kill first over the moralistic attempt at non-violence.  This appears to me to echo the real life fight against ISIS.  The popular view is to strike hard with as much as possible before further analyzing alternatives.  Drone-strike them into oblivion.  But this ignores the fact that such tactics only increase the threat ultimately. Too-far-gone  tactics at Abu Ghraib only created a new threat, ISIS.  While a more nuanced, long-view strategy with a lighter touch might have given us a map to progress that didn't have  increasing blow-back.  The lesson revealed when we step outside ourselves and profess what these characters should do: there really is no longer an unbreakable moralistic code that we as a culture can fall back upon.  We all fundamentally adhere to a policy of pragmatic power exertion which will yield us the best advantage . Unchained postmodern relativism is the reality, despite those that claim different.  The standard charge of relativism may be an overstatement, but ethics certainly are fluid and up for debatable adaptation, but they are not unconnected to power. Ultimately, the Real we find projected in (dramatic) Nazis/aliens/zombies is much easier to confront then the actually Real we as humans inject into history. Despite what the outcomes are of our present predicaments, we only have ourselves to blame.




[1] Besides the standard Nazi inclusion in every hypothetical ethical discussion (possibly to be replaced with ISIS?), there is the question of killing Hitler - even Jeb had to weigh in on that with his far too utilitarian answer.  But, maybe, just maybe, killing Hitler wouldn't be the best possible alternative - if, say as in this scenario, the result will be nuclear war.

Jeremiah Blues (2016.2.13)

Reading Infinite Jest two months ago, I found suspending disbelief of David Foster Wallace's view of government difficult, the subsidized time and Johnny Gentle's presidency seemed too far of a stretch.  After tonight's debate I no longer feel that way, I think DFW was ahead of his time a knew what evolution was coming. Not only was this debate entertaining, it showed the potential that the new American election procedure has.  Not only should this group of republicans have more debates they should embrace Trump's lead and turn the entire election into a reality show.

Titled: America's Next Top Real Big President Survivor 2016 : The Clown Circus
the candidates should have to live together, sharing an apartment in Trump Tower, until they are voted off.  Being pure gold, the money made could fund the campaign and the President's operating budget.

On a (more) serious note, it is unfortunate that all the candidates (even less-nuts Kasich) took today's opportunity to call upon President Obama to not do his job of appointing a Justice purely for the sake of partisan ideology.  Telling the president to not fulfill his obligation just because he is in a different party is not only despicable, but an obstruction of the American political system, and quite frankly borders on treason.

There's so much that can be said about these candidates, but in the interest of time here are some quick notes:

Carson: Used one of his few opportunities to speak to claim that Obama refuses to attack ISIS tankers because of collateral fears.  Plain falsehood, that has been the exact Obama strategy since October.  And then there was his completely made-up Stalin quote.  Pure fabrication. Using his limited time to spread lies makes Carson a fool.  Why is he even still in this race?

Trump: He made the most sense tonight, calling out the Bush administration for its illegal, ill-advised and fabricated war in Iraq.  Republicans apparently didn't want to hear this, highlighting the fact that Trump is smarter than his supporters and his party.

Cruz: Such an unlikable human being.  By far the worst candidate, but hearing him yell at Rubio in Spanish was entertaining.  His claim the middle class has been abandoned by seven years of Obama proved how clueless and deceitful he is.  No, that would be the 35 years of abandonment since St Reagan (whose name was invoked tonight more times than I could count.) If any of them were serious in solving the problems they cite, they would abandon their neo-conservativism and pursue a moderate approach.

Bush: Spent most of the time whining about the others calling him names and attacking his family (brother).  I recall this brother being a significant President of the United States, I think that makes him a legitimate target for criticism.  He seems very unhappy to be in this race and everyone, right or left, and himself would be better off if he quit.

Rubio:  Made a good point of taxation, that business can write off investments , but individuals (families) can't.  A good point in an otherwise bad tax plan.  If he would let go of his pathelogical hated of President Obama, and concentrated on positive points, he could be a much stronger candidate with wider appeal. And then there's his complete lie about no lame-duck president appointing a Supreme Court justice.  When was the last time? Answer: 1987, by St Ronald Reagan.

Kasich: Attempted to be reasonable.  It's too bad he takes the time to support the Iraq war and denounce Obamacare (and admit his own rejection of it in Ohio).  If he was serious about assisting the people as he claims, he would reverse these points.