Sunday, March 24, 2019

Over 130 People Killed in Attack on Central Mali Village

There was an attack on a village in central Mali earlier today.

Here is part of a report by Al Jazeera earlier in the day:

Moulaye Guindo, the mayor of the nearby town of Bankass, said men dressed as traditional Donzo hunters encircled and attacked the nearby Fulani village of Ogossagou-Peul at around 4am (04:00 GMT) on Saturday.  

"It's a very heavy death toll," he told Reuters news agency. 

"The village of Ogossagou is completely devastated," the mayor said, adding that bodies were still being discovered.  

"The body count continues by the gendarmes, who have just told me they have found 110 bodies, but the count continues," he said.

Welingara, another nearby village, had also been attacked. 

Most recent estimates have the death toll now at over 130 people.






'Scores killed' after attack in central Mali village Local officials say early morning attack leaves at least 110 dead, amid worsening ethnic violence in parts of Mali. by Al Jazeera, March 24, 2019:


Trump Both Tacitly and Actively Encourages Violent Thought & Behavior By Supporters

These days, we seem to be asking ourselves just what in the hell is wrong with our world, and the people in it?

That mystery of not understanding just what the hell is going on is especially relevant here in the United States, where an angry group of tens of millions of voters were so sick of lying, corrupt politicians with a false sense of entitlement, that they elected into the highest office in the land a lying, corrupt,  and transparently narcissistic billionaire with a false sense of entitlement.

Guess they showed the rest of us, eh?

There is a gun store with the charming name of Tactical Shit in St. Peters, Missouri, a suburb of St. Louis, that asked Facebook followers whether the shooting in New Zealand was a tragedy, or "fucking great?"

According to one screenshot, roughly 15 percent of those who participated in the poll felt that the shooting was something to be happy about, although it was also reported that 87 percent felt it was a tragedy. Not only would that constitute a vast majority, it also qualifies as something that former President George W. Bush might describe as "fuzzy math"). The store, which has a reputation for making a point of being edgy and controversial, even put up a picture of a popular meme of the distracted boyfriend, the one in which the boyfriend looks at an attractive woman and makes no effort to hide his interest, even while holding his outraged girlfriend's hand. But the meme was modified, so that the attractive woman was "one guy shooting Muslims in revenge," and the jealous boyfriend was, according to the illustration, "literally the whole fucking world." Meaning, of course, that the entire world could sympathize with the New Zealand mass shooter, at least secretly.

This, of course, could be shrugged off by the store manager. He acted surprised that the questionnaire, and the altered distracted boyfriend meme, caused hundreds of Facebook followers to unfollow the store. But this is the kind of pushing of the envelope in terms of not only accepting, but increasingly endorsing outright violence which has become commonplace since Trump's political rise. And it is Trump himself who has mastered this threatening undertone, several times suggesting that there could be violence if he does not get his way.

His supporters tend to not be shy about it. I personally have one guy who used to be a relatively close friend, who seems to have gotten lost in this same kind of violent mindset. He always freely mentioned that he was a conspiracy theorist. His mentioning this so openly was something which surprised me a bit, since this is something that I had always thought people would try to hide. Well, I was curious, and checked on his Facebook page. It was loaded with Islamophobic posts, claiming that there was a worldwide invasion, that this mass shooting was fake, basically suggesting that New Zealand was far away and remote, so that relatively few people, presumably, could verify these facts. It is not like there are over four million residents in the country, or anything, or that they are a modern, western nation with pretty much the same technology that other western nations are privy to. None of that matters to him, apparently. And I suspect that, much like with Holocaust deniers, deniers of mass shootings will begin to pop up more regularly. Not surprisingly, this former friend is a fan of Alex Jones, who infamously questioned whether or not the Sandy Hook massacre actually happened, and then got sued. He also got into serious trouble, but still manages to have a following, including this guy, a former personal friend.

Here's the thing (and I am almost ashamed to admit it): when I first got to know him (he was a coworker at my weekend job), he always acted angry, but in an almost exaggerated manner, and usually wound up laughing about it afterward. It did not seem serious, so I admittedly merely joked about his anger, thinking that at least a considerable part of it was just for show. In other words, just an act. We were getting to be closer friends, went to events together, watched an NFL playoff game with my son coming along, and went to a Super Bowl party together, hosted by a black family, and attended by numerous black males. It did not seem to be a problem.

Somehow, though, all of that changed with the 2016 election. He suddenly began to talk about the victimized white race, and was obviously attracted to Donald Trump. We went back and forth, debating each other, and every time that we did so, I got the distinct feeling that he felt personally attacked whenever I dared to question his views, or his, shall we say, "alternate facts." Also, there was no denying that his anger was actually considerable, and it was real. This was no act. Without a trace of shame or embarrassment, he made his profile picture a selfie of himself holding what I can only assume is some kind of semi-automatic weapon. And he became one of those people who very quickly posted NRA and gun advocate nonsense following mass shootings almost as quickly as others expressed horror and indignation at the senseless violence.

In short, he frightened me in a certain respect. Not that I thought he would do anything crazy, or seek me out with that weapon, or anything. But his mind scared me, made me feel uncomfortable, and not in an overawed sense of his being a great intellect. I had assumed him to be relatively intelligent, because he had different interests than most. He loved Russia, and read classics of Russian literature. Even took classes to learn Russian. And he was fairly knowledgeable in history, and could articulate his thoughts fairly well verbally. But those conspiracy theories began to feel ridiculous. He questioned the moon landing, and if memory serves me correctly, once tried to tell me not to dismiss those who believed that the Earth was flat so quickly.

And, of course, there was Donald Trump. While I recoiled in horror with every ridiculous thing that this pathetic excuse for a leader did, and groaned in embarrassment when he shamed this country with some mindbogglingly stupid actions or words (something that he has done with an alarming measure of frequency), this guy (by now a former friend, for all intents and purposes) rejoiced, and seemed to think of Trump as the greatest thing since sliced bread. He expressed appreciation that a billionaire would voluntarily step down to live in the White House, as if that was some sort of slum, in order to, as he put it, save the country. His version of Donald Trump is obviously far different than the one that I see everyday, and he would always accuse me of believing in "fake news." I challenged him, and sarcastically pointed to how frequently he relied on Fox News and Breitbart, asking if this was where I could find more "fair and balanced" news, to which he did not respond. But needless to say, he made his support of Donald Trump in 2020 very, very clear with recent posts.

It saddens me to think about this guy. He made clear to me when we were still friends that he was not especially happy with his life. In certain respects, we could relate to one another. But there was something about him that drew him towards things that I simply could not get into, like an obsession with guns, and an admiration for Trump, of all people. He did not hesitate to express his hatred of certain groups of people, but again, he made it sound like a joke. He claimed that he hated Irish and Polish people, even though he himself was married to a Polish woman. Jokingly, he claimed that this was why he knew enough to hate them.

Yes, it all seemed like a joke, and he certainly never expressed any outright pride about being white when we were friends and coworkers, in a work site where there were plenty of black and Hispanic people. Now, I cannot help but wonder just how much it was all a joke, this hatred of groups of people. And I wonder why he never expressed his apparent affinity for what is now called white nationalism while working with all of those black people that we were mutual friends with.

This guy became the most obvious voice and face of the so-called "Trump nation." In fairness, I know some other people who are fans of Trump, although none of them seemed as blatantly angry and sympathetic to white nationalism as this guy did, and still does. When I think of Trump supporters, it is him that comes to my own mind. And if he were living in the St. Louis area, I can only imagine that he would have found this store, Tactical Shit, and probably followed it on Facebook and other social media sites, perhaps.

Getting back to that store, here is a bit more on that unofficial query, as well as some words by the owner, T.J. Kirgin, this is what he asked customers:

"How do you 'feel' about the NZ Shooting?" the query began. "This poll is because in our posts and news stories, our shitheads seem pretty divided."

Presumably, this store understood that it was basically inviting the most extremist opinions to be shared in a very public manner. But the poll tried to reassure them:

"We are in no way are indicating our opinion," the post added, "just want yours."

Kirgin expressed surprise by how many people seemed to think that this New Zealand massacre was, as he worded it, "fucking great!" Kirgin elaborates:

"That's how polarized this thing is already. So then I'm like, 'Fuck it, fucktards, I gotta find out what you're thinking here,' because it's obviously a polarized thing within our fan base, which are hardcore motherfuckers. So I put out a poll." 

"That's hardcore, man. But that speaks to the nature of what's happening in America, the nature of what's happening in the gun community, and globally with this event."

Here, this store is clearly one owned by, and catering to, gun advocates. Supposedly responsible gun owners, right? Yet, here they are, making light of one of the worst mass shootings in modern history. Mind you, this is a gun store, supplying like-minded people with deadly weapons, and they seem to be almost endorsing future mass shootings, so long as these mass shootings target Muslims. Of course, they do it in such a way that they can shrug and deny it, much like Trump does. But the message seems clear enough if you read between the lines. Like New York Times columnist David Leonhardt suggests about the reality of Trump promoting violence, making the link really is not that hard, and does not require serious or piercing thought. It is almost right there, on the surface. These guys are not themselves picking up assault rifles and doing the shooting, but almost applauding those who do is yet one step closer to doing just that. 

That seems to me to pretty well sum up the unofficial tendency, or perhaps you could word it as flirtation, with violent tendencies, even flirtations and expressions of sympathy with hate crimes, among those who identify with Trump. And there is a reason why they like him so much. Because Trump himself has similarly flirted with outright violence, and has actively worked to further the polarized political atmosphere in this country, all while claiming, in words, to be the "president for all Americans," which he claimed he would be on the night when he won the election. His supporters feel empowered by that, and then try to bully everyone else into trying to support "our president," even though Trump makes much more clear with his actions that he is not really the "president for all Americans." After calling for establishing a national registry of Muslims, we can certainly understand that they would not feel like he is their president. After calling Mexican immigrants criminals and rapists, we can understand why they would not feel that he is their president. After referring to dozens of African and Central American nations, as well as Haiti, as "shithole nations," and showing other fairly racist tendencies, we can understand why they also would not feel that he is their president. After an entire lifetime spent openly lusting after women and viewing them as merely sexual objects and nothing else, we can understand why they, too, would not feel that he is their president. And after spending more than two years now trashing news sources that are critical of him in any way as "fake news" and claiming that they are an "enemy of the people," we can understand why so many Americans who are interested in preserving what remains of our democracy also do not feel like he is their president.

That is the problem. Trump lies relentlessly, and talks from both sides of his mouth, and then turns around and points the finger and accuses others of doing exactly what he himself is guilty of. Yet, his supporters believe him, and adore him for it. They feel that he is really pissing off the liberals, and that, to them, is a triumph. Indeed, for them, this is all of the "winning" that Trump promised them. It is clearly not designed for all Americans, and never was. And Trump goes farther than that, like his recent undertone of violence, suggesting that he would hate for his rougher supporters to grow violent, because that would bode well for the Democrats. Trump also claimed that there is no way that he could possibly lose the upcoming election, unless it is specifically rigged in the Democrats favor.

Indeed, David Leonhardt is right in his New York Times column, which I recommend reading (see the link below). It really is not difficult to see how Trump encourages violence, and how this violence seems to be running wild now all over the world. It has empowered some, both here in the United States and in other countries, even as far away as tiny New Zealand, to be more comfortable expressing their hatred, and in the most extreme cases, to lash out with horrific violence. Trump has a big mouth, and when he "jokes" about inflicting bodily harm against those who oppose him, whether it is protesters or members of the media at his ridiculous rallies, or whether he is basically threatening violence if he does not get his way and win the next election, this man is clearly encouraging violence.

Here, specifically, is what Trump said, and note how he can clearly deny any specific incitement to violence, even though he clearly is insinuating, even encouraging, these supporters of his to at least get ready for violence:

“You know, the left plays a tougher game. It’s very funny. I actually think that the people on the right are tougher, but they don’t play it tougher. O.K.? I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump. I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad.”

Leonhardt points out other such instances with Trump:

This wasn’t the first time Trump had mused about violence, of course. He has talked about “Second Amendment people” preventing the appointment of liberal judges. He’s encouraged police officers to bang suspects’ heads against car roofs. He has suggested his supporters “knock the hell” out of hecklers. At a rally shortly before 2018 Election Day, he went on a similar riff about Bikers for Trump and the military.

Leonhardt continues:

I’m well aware of the various see-no-evil attempts to excuse this behavior: That’s just how he talks. Don’t take him literally. Other Republicans are keeping him in check. His speeches and tweets don’t really matter.  

But they do matter. The president’s continued encouragement of violence — and of white nationalism — is part of the reason that white-nationalist violence is increasing. Funny how that works.

Trump is sometimes dismissed as incredibly stupid when he stumbles on words, often interrupting his own unclear and unimpressive thoughts, or conducting himself in such a petty and disgraceful manner that it makes any rational person cringe. However, he is shrewd and capable in his own way, and let's face it: he is a master at manipulation. I am not sure about the "art of the deal" self-promotion that he gives himself, but he absolutely knows how to get his way, and how to use people to help him do that. This is exactly what he is doing right now, with his supporters. How else can you explain rural voters so strongly supporting an arrogant New York billionaire with a false sense of entitlement? They actually believe that he is one of them. That is why it matters little whether or not Trump actually himself is an outright white supremacist, or that he never actively encourages any single specific call to violence. But the spike in hate crimes, and the transparent polarization and undertone of anger dominating this country, is very clearly being enhanced by his words and his actions, to the point that it has drawn attention around the world.

After all, it was not without a reason that a white supremacist and mass murderer halfway around the planet called Trump out by name as “a symbol of renewed white identity.”

If that one guy could do the damage that he did in tiny New Zealand, just imagine what some like-minded people could do here in the United States, where they are actively being encouraged by their president to lash out violently against those who oppose them.





Below are the links to the articles that I used, including all quotes, in writing this particular blog entry:



It Isn’t Complicated: Trump Encourages Violence He doesn’t deserve blame for any specific attack. He does deserve blame for the increase in white-nationalist violence.  David Leonhardt By David Leonhardt Opinion Columnist  March 17, 2019:



TACTICAL GEAR STORE POLLS FOLLOWERS, ASKING IF NEW ZEALAND MASSACRE WAS ‘TRAGIC’ OR ‘F****NG GREAT’ BY SCOTT MCDONALD ON 3/18/19:


St. Louis Store Asks Whether New Zealand Mosque Shooting Was Tragic or 'Fucking Great' Posted By Danny Wicentowski on Mon, Mar 18, 2019

Saturday, March 23, 2019

Fox News Contributor Claims America ‘Doesn’t Get Enough Credit’ For Ending Slavery

Slavery is one of those incredibly divisive, polarizing issues that literally tore the country apart, leading to the Civil War. The Union was saved, and slavery finally officially abolished, when the North finally defeated the South. 

Yet, the scourge of slavery, and the lasting impacts, did not simply end there. Many feel that slavery continues to be a divisive issue for the United States, even over a century and a half after it was officially abolished. Of course, you could argue that a form of slavery was reinvented when southern states created Jim Crow segregation, which was strictly enforced both legally and socially. This meant that the racial divisions that obviously existed during slavery were not directly confronted, but put off, as whites tried to maintain a de facto superior status. This, in turn, contributed to making the racial divisions in the country still very much a sore subject ever since. 

That is particularly true since so many Americans, particularly white Americans, remain in denial about the nation's racist past.

This seems particularly true of those who would identify as conservatives (although some conservatives feel that many who identify as conservatives are not real conservatives). There is this denial of just how much racism has played a major role throughout American history. And you find this sentiment of waving off any concerns of racist particularly strong among those who support Donald Trump.

One particularly egregious example came from a politician from my own home state of New Jersey. This was a recent quote from New Jersey Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll:

"If slavery was the price that a modern American's ancestors had to pay in order to make one an American, one should get down on one's knees every single day and thank the Lord that such price was paid," Carroll told the Associated Press at the time. 

He went on to say he was descended from Irish ancestors who fled their country in the 1850's, during the potato famine, which he said was exacerbated by the British.   "Far from holding it against the modern British, I delight in the cruelty of their forebears. Without same, I might be hanging around in Inisfree," Carroll said, referencing an Irish island

Not so long ago, this might have seemed like a truly ignorant, even ridiculous statement from anyone, let alone an elected public servant. But these days, it is increasingly standard. In this day and age of Trump, staggeringly stupid and outrageous quotes and actions have become the norm, seemingly. And there are people, even networks like FOX, that encourage us to accept this as the new normal, and complain whenever some among us point out that there is nothing normal about what is happening, and how this clearly signifies an all too real dumbing down of America.

So, it should come as no surprise whatsoever that FOX News chimes in, and offers little but platitudes and some vague notions of moral superiority in the American past. No serious examination of racism or it's prominent role in American history. Just a whitewashing and glorifying of the freedom that they keep proclaiming this nation has always represented.

Fox News Contributor Katie Pavlich had this to say about slavery:

"They keep blaming America for the sin of slavery but the truth is, throughout human history, slavery existed, and America came along as the first country to end it within 150 years. And we get no credit for that to move forward and try to make good on that.

“If you want to inflame racial tension even more, start blaming people who have nothing to do with slavery for the sin of slavery. That is not fair, that’s not the American way, and we shouldn’t be doing it.”

Some responded immediately, such as Soledad O'Brien, via tweet:

Soledad O'Brien ✔ @soledadobrien  Is it hard for @KatiePavlich to be a complete moron? The utter stupidity.

I looked at her statement, and have to say that, if I try, it seems that her statement might not be as clear-cut as it seems. She says that we were the first nation to end it after 150 years, which suggests that slavery only existed for 150 years in the United States, but that is demonstrably not true. Technically, the first African slaves on what would become American territory were seen in Florida, although that would remain a Spanish colony for some time. But slavery definitely was introduced to what would become the United States - which were then the thirteen original colonies - in the early 1600's. So, given that slavery was in existence by the early 1600's, and was officially abolished in the mid-1800's, her math is clearly off by about 100 years.

So, then I thought: maybe she meant that slavery only existed in the United States as a country (since gaining it's independence) for 150 years. But again, we achieved independence in 1776, and that means that it lasted less than 100 years, so that did not make much sense, either. Other countries abolished slavery in less time than the United States following independence (we'll get to the specifics of when numerous countries abolished slavery shortly).

And the only other angle that I can see is that she is claiming that the United States was the first country to abolish slavery. Now, if you suggest that a territory that was not then a part of the United States, but would become a part of it later, was the first to abolish slavery, then maybe, maybe, she might have somewhat of a point. Indeed, the State of Vermont, then it's own independent republic, banned slavery in 1777. And the United States itself banned slavery through legislative action in 1808, although that clearly had no impact on the South for many decades. Slavery remained fully in effect in the South. This was no secret, because it was the divisive issue of it's day. In fact, we fought a bloody war over it.

That means that neither of those arguments makes much sense.

And that leaves one argument left, which is that the United States was the first nation to abolish slavery. But this, too, is clearly, demonstrably false. 

Denmark banned import of slaves to the West Indies in 1792. Spain abolished slavery in 1811, although Cuba rejected this ban and continued the practice. Sweden banned slavery in 1813. Netherlands banned slavery in 1814. France banned slavery in 1817, although this did not take effect until nearly a decade later. Great Britain abolishes slavery in 1833. Portugal abolished slavery in all of it's colonies in 1858.

Then, Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation banned slavery throughout the United States, and the 13th Amendment confirmed this, although this only fully took effect in 1865, following the end of the Civil War.

Slavery still did exist elsewhere, however. It was abolished in Cuba in 1886, and finally in Brazil in 1888. And while slavery had officially been banned many years before, in 1838 by the British, it still basically existed in the old Boer republics within South Africa: the Orange Free State and the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek (ZAR), more commonly known as the Transvaal, inside of present day South Africa. It eventually was phased out, but the end was not quite as clear as in some of those other countries, as it continued to exist in particularly isolated pockets for many decades after it was officially abolished by the British in South Africa.

So, we can see that while the United States was not the last country to abolish slavery, it was far from the first. These are the facts, and then really is no way to dispute them. You certainly cannot make the argument that because the then independent state of Vermont banned slavery in 1777, that this somehow applied to the whole country. Hell, slavery was officially banned in the United States through legislative action in 1808, but it would take well over a century more - and only after a bloody civil war had been fought to eradicate it - for slavery to finally go away. That makes the United States the only nation where it took a major war to end the institution of slavery.

And, let's face it: slavery ended, but something new took it's place. The United States became the first country to replace official slavery with official segregation, which also was strictly socially enforced.

Those are some dubious distinctions, and we as Americans have to own up to it, regardless of what any so-called "expert" on FOX News says, or how she tries to rewrite history. The facts are the facts, and there are no alternative facts that can be relied upon. And regardless of how truth and facts seem to consistently get trampled on during this era of Trump, facts do matter. 









Fox News Contributor Katie Pavlich: America ‘Doesn’t Get Enough Credit’ For Ending Slavery Journalist Soledad O’Brien called the contributor “a complete moron” by David Moye, 03/19/2019:




NJ Lawmaker Said African-Americans Should Be Thankful for Slavery. Now, He Wants a New Job by Karen Rouse, January 30, 2019:





12 YEARS AGO CHRONOLOGY-Who banned slavery when? IN DEPTH, MARCH 22, 2007:




Slavery in the South African Interior During the 19th Century by Fred Morton Subject: Cultural History, Slavery and Slave Trade, Southern Africa Online Publication Date: Apr 2017:



Friday, March 22, 2019

RIP, Sydney Aiello, Survivor of Parkland School Shooting

Very sad news to report today.

Sydney Aiello, who was a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, took her own life.

She had been suffering from survivor's guilt, and had struggled for the entire year following the mass shooting last year.

Very tragic, and sad for everyone, especially the other survivors, and her family.

Rest in peace, Sydney Aiello.




Parkland shooting survivor Sydney Aiello takes her own life BY Christina Capatides, March 22, 2019:



Mueller Report Will Be Released Very Soon, But Will Likely Change Nothing in the U.S.

Trump and many political allies of his have been complaining about how long the Mueller Report is taking, although there was clearly a lot to investigate. Trump's favorite thing to dismiss this is to call it a "witch hunt," although a real witch hunt does not usually get nearly so many convictions and does not normally land so many people in prison.

But that does not stop Trump from opening his legendarily big mouth and giving his two cents worth (like with everything about Trump, that is well over the actual worth of his words). 

That said, I personally have my own doubts. Whatever the report reveals - and it does indeed appear that Trump's team, and possibly President Trump himself - had some measure of collusion with Russia prior to the 2016 election - I remain skeptical about two things that some, if not most, Trump detractors still seem to strongly attach themselves to.

First, I do not believe that this was the reason that he won the election. Keeping in mind that in any normal democracy, he would not have won the election at all because, well, he did not win the popular vote. In fact, he lost be nearly three million votes (2.7 million, to be precise). But Hillary lost officially because she was a mediocre candidate. The polls showed her trailing Trump before she received the nomination, and similar polls always showed that she was struggling, and was very disliked and distrusted. Also, she just lacked fresh ideas, and in typical Clinton political machinery fashion, simply attached herself to the popular, political profitable, rising ideas of the moment, regardless of whether her own record of the past contradicted these positions or not. The mainstream Democrats were so fixed on the idea that she was their candidate, that hardly anyone dared to challenge her in the primary, and it was unofficially seen as her nomination in the beginning. When someone finally did decide to run, it was a then largely unknown politician, who managed to garner a considerable national following because of his candor, his honesty, and his consistent history in championing an agenda that favored working class people, while Hillary made speeches about economic inequality and unfairness while wearing designer clothing that cost more than most average Americans make in several months. 

Secondly, I do not believe that Trump will be impeached, let alone removed from office. That does not mean that I do not think that he deserves it. Hell, this guy makes Richard Nixon and the Watergate debacle look like a petty little squabble among boy scouts around a campfire. If anyone ever deserves to be removed from office, it is Trump. The level of corruption and criminality is mind boggling. As far as I am concerned, he deserves to stand trial for his crimes, and he would almost assuredly be found guilty in a fairer, more adult world. Frankly, he deserves to spend the rest of his days behind bars, with all of the time to think about his crimes, and how his narcissism landed him there.

Unfortunately, that is not the reality. Republicans show no real evidence of even considering any of the mountains of evidence with this guy, and that goes well beyond the Mueller Report or the allegations of collusion with Russia. This guy is profiting from the presidency, which is illegal. There are all sorts of shady deals that he was involved with, and his conduct since assuming the presidency is undemocratic and worthy of removal from office. Yet, they will likely not budge, which translates to Trump getting away with it, yet again. 

So, my own suspicion is that the release of the Mueller Report will be just more of the same. What already was leaked was proof of criminal conduct against Trump for some, and it was refuted and completely disbelieved by his detractors as "fake news." In our polarized political climate, that seems unlikely to change.

This is not what I want to happen, mind you, but rather what I expect to happen. There will be more evidence against Trump, and maybe even more official inquiries. And once the smoke settles, and the debates on the political networks finally quiet down, Donald Trump will still be talking endlessly with his big mouth while in the White House, basically telling everyone "I told you so," even when the proof against him is frankly overwhelming. 

Of course, I could be wrong, and this is definitely one time when I would hope to be wrong.

So, let's see what happens.




Here is the link to the article on Robert Mueller delivering his report to Attorney-General William Barr:

Mueller Delivers Report on Trump-Russia Investigation to Attorney General by Sharon LaFraniere and Katie Benner March 22, 2019:



Trump's Relentless Attacks on McCain in the Shadow of the New Zealand Massacre Reveal Some Uncomfortable Truths About Him & the Tens of Millions of Loyal Trump Supporters

It does not take a particularly civilized mindset to do recognize some basic standards in how you should conduct yourself. Yet here in the United States, we have an elected leader who fails to manage even this minimal level of basic human decency.

Admittedly, I have long been at a loss to understand how millions of people seem to continually find excuses for this man's ridiculous and inexcusable conduct, let alone to the virtual worshiping at this man's feet that millions of Americans seem to feel towards this man. Then again, if you had asked me years ago whether mostly rural voters allegedly skeptical of big city slicker types would have taken to an elitist billionaire who does not go to church, boasts about cheating on his multiple wives, and is known mostly for relying on deceit to get his way, and has behavioral meltdowns when he does not get his way, like a child throwing a tantrum, I would have thought it impossible.

Yet, here we are. It is 2019, and we have Donald Trump in the Oval Office. Rural voters supported him, and you could seriously argue that it was supposedly devout Evangelical Christians who have remained most loyal, even passionate, towards this man. Apparently, no matter what he actually has done that contradicts their allegedly more reserved, more straightforward ideas of what a truly good person is or does or believes, they excuse everything, every excess that this man regularly displays, and then passionately defend him when the "Fake News" reveals unsavory truths about their man, or actually simply report the news of what he actually did or said, when it seems especially unflattering. So passionate are some, that many literally seem to be ready to pick up arms and wage war against their fellow Americans in order to defend this man.

It is hard not to wonder why, when he continually acts in such a manner that lacks even remotely decent behavior. 

Once again, Trump seemed to serve up platitudes when it came to a truly horrific hate crime. He hardly even seemed to make a point of distancing himself from the murderer in New Zealand when that man referenced Trump by name as a symbol of what he believed in, and what pushed him to do what he did and kill 50 people. Namely, white supremacy.

Still, even though Trump hardly spoke much about the New Zealand massacre, other than offering standard sympathy with that nation and expressing typically inadequate and, frankly, instinctive descriptions of it as an evil act (again, without addressing why this man seemed to view Trump as some kind of hopeful symbol of the white race), he did have a busy weekend focusing on other matters, such as whining about what he feels is unfair treatment that he receives from a comedy show, to the point of threatening legal action.

And, of course, there are the personal attacks against John McCain. That much he has done before. The only thing? McCain is dead. 

Now, most people tend to hold back from attacking dead people. It is one of those rarely spoken about rules, and it is rarely spoken about probably because it seems so damn obvious. It is just not something that most people would do.

Yet, instead of clarifying his own position and making sure that people did not get alarmed by the fact that a man who killed 50 people a week ago actually mentioned Trump by name as a symbol of white hope, Trump basically just shrugged that off, seemingly as not important (he claimed that he had not heard that at all, and then never actually elaborated on his own feelings regarding it), and then went on and on this weekend about the late Senator John McCain.

This kind of behavior is, frankly, sick behavior. I am not saying that merely in terms of stating that it is sickening, because almost everyone agrees with that - with the notable exception of the tens of millions of loyal Trump supporters, who always make an exception for their man. But to be that low as to launch those kinds of attacks, and to do so in that timing, when so much of the country, and indeed the world, is devastated by the recent mosque killing in New Zealand?

Well, there is something seriously wrong with this man. Seriously wrong, as in mental illness. It just is not something that is done, but you get the feeling that Trump cannot help himself at this point. And it makes you wonder about the state of mind of his loyal supporters, who continually empower this man to go further and further still with such ridiculous behavior. There is a complete absence of limits, and this man and his loyal following keep pushing that, to the detriment of the country that they profess to love.

And so, I thought it was something that we should reflect upon. To that end, I added two links which explore this bizarre conduct, and I recommend taking a look at them. One merely reports on the president's actions and words toward McCain in recent days, and the other explores what it reveals about Trump's mindset.



These are the two articles that I used in writing this particular entry:

A Damaged Soul and a Disordered Personality Trump’s continuing attacks on John McCain reveal a worrisome state of mind.  MAR 18, 2019 Peter Wehner Contributing editor at The Atlantic and senior fellow at EPPC

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/trump-tweets-attack-john-mccain/585193/?utm_medium=offsite&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=newsstand-ideas&fbclid=IwAR3r8Lwwf4E4uj_J9QO6cVixPW6XBqXZkaPzrJYIhkbA38B07PD9OAeS6Gg






Trump blasts McCain, bemoans not getting 'thank you' for funeral BY BRETT SAMUELS - 03/20/19:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/434979-trump-blasts-mccain-bemoans-not-getting-thank-you-for-funeral?fbclid=IwAR3QC5SQ9YjWmoVLgsdaHal_5s0pYn3vRSgQCGPyFVwZJQpuILzODeayqWE


Thursday, March 21, 2019

Cyclone Idai Devastates Three Nations in Southern Africa, May Be Worst Natural Disaster in History of Southern Hemisphere

There was a horrific natural disaster in southern Africa days ago, although this was likely largely overshadowed by the man-made tragedy in New Zealand.

Indeed, Cyclone Idai wrought unbelievable destruction upon three countries - Mozambique, Malawi, and Zumbabwe. Hundreds have already been confirmed dead, and the death toll is expected to rise to above 1,000. Some people are already suggesting that this may have been the largest single natural disaster ever in the Southern Hemisphere!

One major obstacle is that these are not developed countries, so that much of the hardest hit areas are very difficult and time-consuming to gain access to even under good conditions. Clearly, Cyclone Idai had made it far, far more difficult for any kind of aid relief.

Here is a description to get a picture of just how bad this disaster is:

According to the Associated Press, bodies from Zimbabwe have been swept down mountainsides into Mozambique. "Some of the peasants in Mozambique were calling some of our people to say, 'We see bodies, we believe those bodies are coming from Zimbabwe,'" said July Moyo, a minister of local government.  

The cyclone made landfall near the city of Beira in Mozambique, home to 500,000, as a Category 3 storm. Reports from the city indicate that about 90% of it has been destroyed by a combination of strong winds, storm surge flooding and heavy rainfall 

The UN estimates 1.6 million people have been affected. 

"Everyone is doubling, tripling, quadrupling whatever they were planning," said Caroline Haga of the Red Cross referring to aid, according to the AP. "It's much larger than anyone could ever anticipate."  

Unfortunately, torrential rains are continuing, so the situation is projected to get worse.

Yet, it could get even worse. How bad could it get?

According to the UN Humanitarian Office, "The situation is likely to deteriorate, and the number of people affected is likely to increase, as weather experts predict heavy rainfall" through March 21, with water levels potentially rising another 26 feet in some places.  

"There are also growing concerns regarding the potential effects of the overflow of the Marowanyati Dam in Zimbabwe on water levels in Mozambique," the office stated.

Horrible. 

Truly tragic news from southern Africa. Let us hope that it does not actually get that bad, and let's keep our eyes and ears open to see what we can do to help from our end.

This is the kind of tragedy that puts a lot of things about life into perspective.




This is the link to the article that I used in writing this blog entry, and from which I got all of the quotes used above:


The "inland ocean" in the Indian Ocean by Andrew Freedman, March 20, 2019: