Ironically, some of the very same attributes which make me so ideally suited for pursuing my stated goal of “saving the planet,” have also been responsible for holding me back. For example, if I wasn’t such a perfectionist, and if I wasn’t so prolifically ideative, then it would not have taken as many years as it has, merely to get to the point where I am at now.
On Labor Day, 2005, I completed the process of writing the content for this website. Two leaves of absence from work (May 2004 to Nov. 2004, and May 2005 to Feb. 2006) gave me the time necessary, both to compose the content, and then to transcribe it from the typed first draft, to Microsoft Word. But a major time-consuming effort was still needed to proofread, make revisions, and for fact-checking. When I went back to working full-time again, it was difficult to find time to do any of this. Months and months would pass by without being able to make any headway. In fact, it was not until July, 2008, that I began writing this section you are reading now. And meanwhile, I kept continuously finding more and more new info that would fit in perfectly on one page or another. This brings to mind a sentiment expressed by Leonardo da Vinci, (which I’ll paraphrase): “A work is never finished, it is only abandoned.” It is now time to finally “abandon” this website. [Note: That had been my original intent, but WordPress makes editing and adding new material far too easy to not use it.] I can’t keep waiting till I have the time to get everything “just right.” Though this website is far from perfect, I hope it will at least be sufficient enough to help get me to the point where I can acquire some starting capital, so I can begin to move ahead with implementing the various strategies I would like to see take shape.
Next, I wish to make clear that although acquiring funding (so that I can quit my job, hire assistants, and begin the process of immersing myself lifelong in my pursuit to save the planet) is by far, my top priority, if you think you might be able to help in some other, non-philanthropic capacity, or if you believe you are one of those extremely rare individuals who is both very bright, and feel simpatico with virtually every viewpoint expressed on this website, then please do contact me. Remember when I mentioned on the About me page, about how “virtually every word, every sentence, every paragraph,” of that one particular chapter in Gary Null’s book Who Are You, Really?, I strongly identify with? Well, I am particularly interested in hearing from people who, similarly, feel that same way, but regarding this website. If that is the case – if you have read and very strongly identify with the sentiments expressed on this website – then please, most definitely, do contact me!
In a nutshell, here is how I would describe the type of people I am looking for (to potentially collaborate with): (a) you are intensely devoted to the cause (saving the planet); (b) you also have the intellect to be up to the task; (c) you understand the depth of the ecological crises we’re up against; (d) and you understand that the broad, all-encompassing nature of the problems, necessitates finding and implementing deep, substantive, lifestyle-changing solutions. Additionally, while this should go without saying, it might be worth stating, that (with all due respect) this invitation does not extend to those who believe in such things as: psychics, dowsing, seances, astrology, extraterrestrial abductions, god(s), afterlife, reincarnation, ghosts, angels, the devil, Heaven, Hell, and the like.
In addition to the above, you would probably also agree with the following postulates, as well: we are endangering the integrity of the biosphere; each and every one of us is contributing to this; this is a very serious situation; something has to be done; we have to change our lifestyle; we have to make sacrifices; these changes and sacrifices are necessary and worthwhile; because the prospects look very grim; it is going to take a massive effort on the part of the entire world community; we have to recognize the fact that so much of what we do, when multiplied by over seven billion people (and that number is ever-increasing), has some impact on the biosphere; we have to stop thinking in small, shallow ways, and think holistically; God-worship is an intellectually objectionable belief system, on so many levels.
Finally, I will now turn my attention to addressing the very people this website was primarily created for: philanthropists. In contrast to Thomas Edison, who stated “Genius is 1 percent inspiration, and 99 percent perspiration,” Albert Einstein, when asked what set him apart, answered “I have no special talents, it’s only that I am passionately curious.” I, too, have an unquenchable thirst for knowledge; but here is how I prefer to explain why I believe I am far ahead of most people, concerning the unique insights I have regarding how to save the planet: If, as Aristotle opined, “excellence is not an act, but a habit,” then perhaps it has been my lifelong preoccupation with “saving the planet,” that has in turn allowed me to gain the necessary insight, in order to be able to become so adept, at knowing what needs to be done, to accomplish that.
Let me state, unequivocally, that I believe I am one of the most (if not the most) uniquely qualified people you are ever likely to find – to philanthropically back – if you are truly concerned about “saving the planet.” I know of no other person I would deem more qualified in that regard. Such a person, or persons, may indeed exist; but I don’t know of any. I realize that may sound grandiose, but that claim is based on a tremendous amount of evidence. From all that I have seen, heard, and read (in books, magazines, newspapers, television, radio, conversations I’ve had, or have overheard) – all throughout my entire life – I have never met, or learned of, another living person, anywhere, that I felt – based upon what I was hearing, or reading – had altogether my vision, and level of understanding, concerning (a) the extent to which we are jeopardizing the biosphere, and (b) what precisely needs to be done, to best attempt to remedy that situation. And this scope encompasses everyone from friends, relatives, neighbors, coworkers, peers, classmates, teachers, professors, acquaintances and strangers, to presidents, presidential candidates, vice-presidents, senators, senatorial candidates, governors, radio talk show hosts, columnists, speakers, authors and television interviewers.
Without exaggeration, I am not sure I can recall a single conversation, in my entire life, where the other person was completely simpatico with me, concerning environmentalism (for lack of a better word). What invariably happens, is either (a) they make statements demonstrating that we are not in agreement on one or more key points, or (b) if we are in agreement on key points, there is a lack of interest in participating in any substantive effort to change the world (on a grand scale). Perhaps they lack the mental capacity to participate in that way, or perhaps they are just far more interested in enjoying life (more interested in savoring the planet, than saving the planet), or perhaps they simply believe they are too old to play a significant role. Perhaps they believe it is completely hopeless (a lost cause), or just aren’t too concerned, or maybe they have an undying faith in man’s ingenuity. Some have told me that they don’t think anything will ever begin to change until a large enough cataclysmic event wakes people up to the fact that we have no choice. Some are actually advocating for nuclear power as an interim solution, rather than drill home the message that we simply have to live within our means and tighten our energy belts. And there is increasingly more and more talk about adapting to the change that is coming, rather than change the harmful habits that are causing the problems. It goes on and on and on. We keep running as fast as we can, but in the wrong direction.
Here are some additional obstacles or experiences I have encountered in my quest to find people on my same mental wavelength, concerning environmentalism: many people don’t have much interest in subjects requiring deep thought (the focus today is instead on things like sports, video games, movies, travel, entertainment, Facebook, Twitter, celebrity gossip, and so forth); or if they do, while the interest might be there, the focus and attention span isn’t; or everything has to come down to a guffaw or a punchline; very frequently, what happens is someone drags the subject of God-worship into the conversation, and starts quoting from the Bible; even when I hear an author of some impressively-titled book, dealing with environmentalism, being interviewed on-air, they make it sound as if, despite the fact the situation is quite alarming, we can nevertheless take relatively simple steps to accomplish what needs to be done. In other words: although the problems are enormous and complex, the solutions are simple and easy. (If that’s the case, then why even write the book in the first place?) One guest that I heard being interviewed on a radio show, spoke extremely eloquently on the subject of environmentalism, but then, literally (I’m not kidding!), in the very next breath, started talking about “flying saucers,” space aliens living among us, and “suppressed technology that would allow us to travel faster than the speed of light.” The dearth of substantive, quality conversation, on the broad, deep topic of environmentalism (for lack of a better word), is deeply chilling, and never ceases to amaze me.
Again, if you are truly and deeply concerned about “saving the planet,” the bottom line is this: I don’t know of anyone else on this entire planet, who I would say is at my level, or is as uniquely qualified, to do just that. But let me expand on that. I am not just talking about not knowing of anyone else being at my same level of eco-consciousness, regarding my concerns about the environment, and our corresponding duty to posterity. No, it is much deeper than that. For example: let us say that “a” represents someone having a very high degree of eco-consciousness. Someone can have “a”, but lack “b” (desire to change the world). Someone can have both “a” and “b”, but lack “c” (belief that one person, or that they in particular, can play a significant role in accomplishing that). Someone can have “a”, “b” and “c”, but lack “d” (willingness to make a commitment to doing just that – to commit themselves towards working to save the planet). Someone could have all of these, but lack “e” (willingness to make a very deep commitment towards working to save the planet – there is a substantial difference, for example, between someone willing to commit a few hours each weekend to this cause, versus someone willing to commit the bulk of each day). Someone could have all of these, but not “f” (a vision of how to change the world). They could have all of these, but lack “g” (a comprehensive vision of how to change the world). They can even have all of the above, but not “h” (a correct, comprehensive vision of how to change the world). This list is anything but complete, but you get the point. When I say I see no one “at my level” (or use similar such wordage), I am referring to having “the complete package” (so to speak), and that is why I see myself as singularly the person to throw your support behind, if you are truly and deeply concerned about saving this planet.
Now, the ball is in your court. It’s up to you! I have been chomping at the bit for many years, raring to set my plans in motion. But I need the necessary capital in order to be able to move forward. I am shifting the weight – the burden – onto your shoulders. I am ready and willing to do my part. But you must be willing to do yours. You must be willing to give … to plant a seed. The philanthropic gift capital I seek, will allow my big world-changing ideas to have an opportunity to finally begin to germinate.
I sincerely thank you for taking the time to read through this website, and to give it the attention that I believe it deserves. Please contact me if you genuinely believe you might be able to help, in some substantive way.
Paul A. Reinicke
***Below, I have created a new blog. It wasn’t an easy decision (“I already have three blogs, do I really want to add another?”). But the deciding factor was this: Donald J. Trump is president; and for the next 4-8 years, the media spotlight will be shining on him. I hate the idea of having to “contaminate” this website with posts about him and his people and what they are doing. (So much of it is ridiculous nonsense — or worse!) Therefore, what I will do is sequester some of those Trump-related posts, here, so that they don’t interfere with the message and mission of my website.
Posts will probably be relatively short and infrequent.
Obviously, Donald J. Trump isn’t the only junk news-generating topic out there grabbing headlines. (By “junk news,” I’m not referring to the journalism or news-reporting, but rather the subject matter itself — e.g., the latest mind-numbingly dumb thing Trump has said or done.) So anything else that I decide to post about, that I similarly consider sequester-worthy (or wish to give less attention to), I will post here, as well.***
Content may be edited or deleted after the posting date.
5/14/2017 Back in March, I learned of a Wall St. Journal editorial (published online, “A President’s Credibility / Trump’s falsehoods are eroding public trust, at home and abroad.” March 21, 2017) that I wanted to take a quick look at, but the Journal’s website only shows three sentences, then tells you to either subscribe or sign in to view the rest of it. Strange. You would think they would want to make their editorials as accessible as possible. What did I do? I did what most people do when they have no time and face such annoyances; I left their website.
But you shouldn’t have that problem finding the editorial I will next cite. In today’s Sunday edition of The New York Times, there appears an editorial titled “Oval Office Etiquette: A G.O.P. Guide” (an online version, published a day earlier, goes instead by this title: “The Republican Guide to Presidential Behavior”). This editorial lists, in bullet point format, thirty-four things that “If you are the president, you may freely” do. This includes the following: “call the media ‘the enemy of the American people’ “; “demand personal loyalty from the F.B.I director”; “vacation at one of your private residences nearly every weekend”; “criticize specific businesses for dropping your family members’ products”; “review and discuss highly sensitive intelligence in a restaurant, and allow the Army officer carrying the ‘nuclear football’ to be photographed and identified by name”; and “promote family businesses on federal government websites.” That is less than one-fifth of the items that are included in the editorial. And we’re only just a bit beyond the Trump administration’s first 100 days in office.
Something else that caught my attention, in today’s Times, was Robert Frank’s “Inside Wealth” column, in the Sunday Business section (“In Washington, the Wealthiest Settle In / Sales of upscale homes and goods rising with the Trump Administration in town”). In it, he states that there are 34 billionaires within a 25-mile radius of Washington; but then we also learn that 2,049 of the D.C.-area’s residents are worth $30 million or more. One 25-year-old is described as walking into a car dealership and plunking down $340,000 in cash for an Aston Martin Vanquish.
What goes through my head every time I read something like that? Here’s what goes through my head every time I read something like that: [while shaking my head disapprovingly] “He could’ve bought a perfectly good car for under forty grand, and gifted $300,000 to someone like me [okay, me], and slept comfortably every night thereafter knowing that because of his generosity, someone was working tirelessly, day and night, to save the planet.” Doesn’t that make so much more sense? But of course no one ever thinks that way; and meanwhile, things get worse and worse, and our prospects for saving the planet get bleaker and bleaker. And all the while, I continue seeing in the paper more and more examples of someone buying a watch for $300,000, or a painting for several million, or gifting five or ten or twenty million dollars to fund education, disease research, or to help the poor or less fortunate. Environmental concerns are hardly ever on our radar. But that is where our focus needs to be. It is a matter of life and death, for our species and for the planet.
5/4/2017 Attorney General Jeff Sessions — a man who never should have been elevated to that position in the first place — has suggested we designate the violent MS-13 gang a terrorist organization. Fine. But what would you call Trump and his gang of Republicans who have eviscerated the Environmental Protection Agency? (Thus diminishing our already slim chance of saving this perilously polluted and plundered planet.)
Nine years ago, a book titled Becoming Good Ancestors (by David Ehrenfeld) was published. I didn’t like that title then; and I still don’t like that title now. Why? Because it sets the bar far too low. If we are to be successful in terms of saving the planet, we need to aim towards becoming exemplary ancestors. This Trump administration only makes that task seem even more Sisyphean.
Additionally, two articles in Newsday, yesterday, also caught my attention. One had to do with Trump; the other, didn’t. But I’ll mention them both.
Lane Filler, a member of Newsday’s editorial board, had a great line in his opinion column (“In the minefield with President Trump / There’s no defending his mortifying behavior, but his defenders try and try” May 3, 2017) ( which I am truncating here): “Trump no more understands history than a giant panda understands particle physics.” This was in response to something Trump recently said about former U.S. President Andrew Jackson.
The other article (The Associated Press, “NY bill would ban declawing of cats” May 3, 2017), reports on a proposed New York State law that would ban cat declawing (or the severing of tendons) for non-medical reasons. Australia and several European countries, according to the article, already have bans on cat declawing. Jennifer Conrad, a California veterinarian who founded Paw Project, a group pushing for the ban, is quoted in the article as stating: “It’s the amputation of a cat’s toes to protect a couch. None of us went to vet school to protect couches.” I did a quick online search and found that there is a 56 minute film starring Conrad, titled The Paw Project. Of the 71 reviews on Amazon.com, 97% give it 5 stars and 3% give it 4 stars. That’s quite impressive. It’s probably a very persuasive film.
4/30/2017 In a November 6, 2016, Home page blog post, I shared a quotation from a Newsday article in which Ron Reagan, Jr., touched upon some of the differences in opinion that existed between himself and his father, Ronald Reagan.
In that same article (Karen Freifeld, “First Family Reunion” Mar. 13, 1989), he also spoke about how he wasn’t shy about openly disagreeing with his father, even though the White House was often populated with people who were: “There’s a tremendous urge, especially in the White House, to be a rooting gallery and never voice any dissent. I just refused to go along with that. I don’t think it does any good, least of all for the person who’s president or First Lady. You’ve got to have some real feedback.”
That quotation came rushing to mind as I reflected on the latest news events. How much less likely are those who are roaming the halls of the White House today, to voice dissent, when we have a president who is so thin-skinned and unable to take or hear criticism — even when in jest — that he’s now become the first president to have skipped the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner, in all the 34 years since it’s morphed into becoming something of a roast. (Though it began in 1921, only since 1983 has it taken on the quality of being like a roast of the sitting president and his administration.)
Indeed, it has been widely speculated that it was because of the humiliating roasting that he received at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner, that he decided to run for president in the first place.
Frontline produced a documentary on this very subject. You can watch it and decide for yourself. [“Inside the Night President Obama Took On Donald Trump / The Choice 2016 / FRONTLINE” was published on the “FRONTLINE PBS / Official” YouTube channel.]
3/14/2017 It was in the news several days ago that the new EPA head Scott Pruitt, in an interview, disputed that carbon dioxide was playing a major role in the global warming that we are seeing on this planet. In a sense, this is nothing new. We know how Pruitt and Trump and many of the key people Trump surrounds himself with, feel on that issue. And it’s a shame having to waste precious time on this nonsense. But that is the reality we are faced with today. President Richard M. Nixon had the foresight to create an Environmental Protection Agency (on December 2, 1970). But now, forty-six years later — and at a time when its importance couldn’t be any more evident — we find ourselves with a Republican president who would like the EPA to become extinct. It could even be argued, that, in essence, Trump would like to see it become the Economy Protection Agency. (And, doesn’t that sound better than calling it the Fossil Fuel Protection Agency?).
As Pruitt’s predecessor at the EPA stated in response, “The world of science is about empirical evidence, not beliefs. When it comes to climate change, the evidence is robust and overwhelmingly clear that the cost of inaction is unacceptably high.”
This too, is nothing new. We’ve known for quite some time that the need for decisive action is overdue. In fact, let me cite a brief news article (“Climate contrast in memos” Dec. 4, 2015) that appeared in Newsday, over two years ago (the byline is The Washington Post). Here is how the news article begins:
The memos, stamped “confidential” and kept under wraps for years, portray a White House eager to assert U.S. leadership on climate change. Global warming will have “profound consequences,” one document warns, and the United States “cannot wait” until all scientific questions are resolved before taking action. The source of the memos: Not Obama’s White House, but policy advisers to former President George H. W. Bush.
(The article states that these documents from the Bush administration were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.) That’s right, that was from an administration that first came to power twenty-eight years ago. And now, four administrations later, we find ourselves with an administration content to do less than nothing to address climate change. The Trump team is actually in the process of rolling back rules and regulations that are already in place to address that issue. That’s insane. But that’s just the beginning. I predict a lot more nonsense like this will be unfolding over the course of the next four years.
I’m not even sure whether they actually believe such nonsense. It might be reminiscent of how big tobacco companies knew cigarette smoking causes cancer, but nevertheless, for decades kept denying that was true. Maybe they know; but don’t care, because they know they won’t be alive a hundred years from now. Maybe they know; but don’t care, because they care more about increasing their wealth and influence and holding onto their positions of power. Maybe they know; but don’t care, because they believe that man’s ingenuity can solve any problem. Maybe they know; but don’t care to admit it for a variety of reasons …
Several years ago, I posed a question to a Christian Republican, who didn’t believe that man could be responsible for warming the planet. (He thought it “arrogant” to think man could affect the climate; but evidently not arrogant to believe that this entire universe was “Created” just for our species, and for our species alone.) I’ll also note that this man holds an esteemed position, in a highly laudable profession. Here is the question I posed: “Let’s say that I’m Bill Gates; and you’re my friend. And I said to you, “Look, you’re my friend. And I’ve got all this money. I can fund any study I want. But I really want to convince you that global warming and climate change are real; and that the causes are anthropogenic. So please tell me, very specifically, what exactly would you need to see, what would it take to convince you that global warming has anthropogenic causes? Just tell me. And I’ll fund those studies.”
He thought for several seconds, and then said (I’m paraphrasing): “That’s a very good question. It really is. It’s a good question. And it deserves an answer. I’m going to have to think about it. But I’m going to get back to you on that. It’s a good question, and it deserves an answer.”
Well, guess what? He never got back to me on that. And eventually he moved on.
I was a little surprised when he said he would get back to me. Because in a sense, it’s a rhetorical question. In a sense, what I’m really asking, is “There are probably literally tons of studies supporting that proposition. Why do you dispute it? What more do you need to see? What would it take to convince you?”
Another individual I addressed that question to — and this person holds an even more esteemed, lofty position (and is a Republican) — stated definitively that no study could ever get him to change his mind regarding that. I think that says it all.
Too bad Trump wasn’t asked in the presidential debates, what, specifically (beyond what has already been published in scientific journals), it would take to convince him that man is warming the planet and causing climate change?
2/28/2017 This Trump presidency has me feeling like a gerbil on an exercise wheel, running faster and faster and getting nowhere. As soon as I post about something terrible Trump said or did, wham, there’s another terrible thing that’s he or his administration has said or done, and another, and another, and another, … And this is just the beginning.
After my last post (which I completed well after midnight, so it was more the 27th than the 26th), I was kicking myself for leaving out the part about Trump’s use of the phrase “enemy of the people.” I meant to include mention of that in the post. It’s such a dangerous terminology for a president (whose tweets have already elicited death threats) to employ even once, and yet it may potentially become one of his new pet phrases.
And guess what? The New York Times yesterday had a cover story on this very thing. The title of the article is “Phrase With a Venomous Past Now Rattles American Politics,” and it was written by Andrew Higgins. Three paragraphs in, Higgins poses the question “Why would the elected leader of a democratic nation embrace a label that, after the death of Stalin, even the Soviet Union found to be too freighted with sinister connotations?” My suspicion is that Stephen Bannon is actually the best person to direct that question to. But in any case, it’s an interesting article. It traces the historical roots of the phrase back to the French Revolution and the subsequent Reign of Terror.
There are several other articles in yesterday’s New York Times worth mentioning. “To Battle Fake News, A Newscast Airs It” (by Andrew E. Kramer), is about a weekly “news” broadcast reporting on the latest “fake news.” Based in Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, StopFake News’s mission is debunking fake news stories. The article left me with the impression that all if not most of the fake news seems to be originating from within Russia.
Remember that bizarre reference Trump made regarding Sweden? (Which prompted one of its former Prime Ministers [Carl Bildt] to tweet: “What has he been smoking?”) Well, page twelve of yesterday’s New York Times had an article (Liam Stack and Christina Anderson, “Sweden’s Defense and National Security Adviser? “We Don’t Know This Guy,’ “), that began by stating: “A man described as a Swedish defense and national security adviser appeared on Fox News last week to defend President Trump’s claim that criminal immigrants are wreaking havoc in Sweden. But according to court records and Swedish officials, the man, identified as Nils Bildt, has a criminal record in the United States and no ties to Sweden’s security establishment.” It also states in the article that “according to public records, Mr. Bildt was born Nils Trolling … and went by that name as recently as May.” [According to the article, Carl Bildt told The Washington Post that he and Nils Bildt are not related.]
On the next-to-last page of yesterday’s New York Times, there is an op-ed by their columnist Charles M. Blow, which addresses Trump’s dishonesty and attacks against the news media. The piece, titled “Trump, Archenemy of Truth,” has one line in particular that I would like to quote: “The press is the light that makes the roaches scatter.” Blow also states in the op-ed that “a free, fearless, adversarial, in-your-face press is the best friend a democracy can have.”
Let me also quote from a letter that appeared in Newsday, yesterday. The letter was written by Robert K. Sweeney, who, according to an editor’s note, “is a former member of the New York Assembly, and was chairman of the Assembly Environmental Conservation Committee from 2007 through 2014.” This is how the letter begins:
Environmentalists are right to be concerned about the goings-on in Washington and what it means for all Americans [“Senate confirms EPA foe Scott Pruitt to lead agency,” News, Feb. 18].
It’s not just about Pruitt and his antipathy toward all things environmental. Last Dec. 1, the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, which has oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency, retweeted a Breitbart News article titled “Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists,” a fiction unsupported by any facts. And, some Republicans in Congress are pushing legislation to eliminate the EPA.
First, I would like to point out that according to Wikipedia, Breitbart News “has published a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories, as well as intentionally misleading stories.” And yet, despite this, they were allowed to attend that White House briefing last week (see the 2/26/2017 blog post below), while The New York Times and other prominent news organizations were excluded.
Second, Sweeney is absolutely correct in stating that “environmentalists are right to be concerned about” what is going on in Washington right now. It ain’t pretty. Just days ago, in speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference, EPA head Scott Pruitt stated that some Obama era environmental regulations will be “rolled back in a very aggressive way,” and possibly within days. About two weeks before that, Republicans were busy trying to weaken the Endangered Species Act. With one Republican senator going so far as to suggest a requirement that for every new species added to the list, one should have to be removed.
France had its Reign of Terror, 1793-1794, and we will have our Reign of Trump 2017-2020. The planet can easily bounce back from a Reign of Terror — our species is highly proficient at increasing its numbers — but recovering from a Reign of Lunacy regarding stewardship of the planet? That is something else, entirely. In my previous post, below, you learned that the betting service Ladbrokes is offering “even odds” that Trump will resign or be removed by impeachment before the end of his term. I can only wish that our odds of saving the planet were looking anywhere near as rosy. The world can ill afford another four years of inaction. Time is running out. (Please see the message at the bottom of this page!)
2/26/2017 Last Sunday, after glimpsing over the three op-ed columns appearing on page 11 of The New York Times, including one titled “How Can We Get Rid of Trump” (Nicholas Kristof, Feb. 19, 2017), the thought struck me that our morally bankrupt president might retaliate somehow.
In that piece, Kristof points out that the betting service Ladbrokes is offering “even odds that Trump will resign or leave office through impeachment before his term ends.” Even odds means if you bet $100 (and you’re right), you get back $200. Those are remarkable odds for such a wager. What is Kristof’s opinion?: “I’d say we’re stuck with Trump for four years.”
Still, the article goes into some detail explaining how, constitutionally, using Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, a sitting president can be removed from power by a simple majority cabinet vote. Then, if the ousted president objects, two-thirds of both houses of congress must approve, or else the President regains office. Interesting.
Kristof states in the op-ed that there is already “broad concern that Trump is both: A) unfit for office, and B) dangerously unstable.” And he even describes how “One pro-American leader in a foreign country called me up the other day and skipped the preliminaries, starting with: ‘What the [expletive] is wrong with your country?’ ”
Five days after his column appeared, guess what happened? Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, held a briefing in his spacious office, that specifically excluded The New York Times, the Guardian, the BBC, CNN, the Los Angeles Times, The Huffington Post, Buzzfeed News and Politico. At this briefing, so there could be no mistake, Spicer even stated “We’re going to aggressively push back.”
Trump also specifically singled out the Times and CNN in a tweet in which he called them “A great danger to our country,” demonstrating that he is a great danger to freedom of the press — and a very poor example for the rest of the world, where many members of the press lose their lives every year doing their job and providing a service that they believe in.
What transpired also appears to justify the concern many have had regarding potential conflicts of interest that could arise involving Trump or members of his cabinet. For my Feb. 20 post, below, I first reviewed a transcript of the Vatican conference (posted on the website of one of the event’s attending press, Buzzfeed News) which Trump’s chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, spoke at; and according to the transcript, Bannon stated that Breitbart News (which he ran at the time) was the third-largest conservative news site, with “a bigger global reach” than Fox News. So isn’t that a highly unethical action to take to be holding back some of the biggest and most widely-cited news organizations in the world, while giving preferential treatment to the conservative news media outlets, including Breitbart News, a news organization Bannon once ran?
One encouraging facet to this news story is that The Associated Press, The Washington Post and Time magazine, all skipped the event, in an obvious show of solidarity. Bravo! I have the utmost respect for that selfless act. It demonstrates commendable journalistic integrity.
Incidentally, this same Sunday Review section had an interesting opinion piece, written by Richard A. Friedman, titled “Diagnosing the President.” And, while I only read part of it, I liked how Jessica Nutik Zitter’s “First, Sex Ed. Then Death Ed.,” makes a strong case for adding a course to the high school curriculum about the final stage of life: death. What a terrific idea — and what a very important topic — I couldn’t agree more. Zitter, a doctor who practices both critical and palliative care medicine at a hospital in Oakland, Calif., ends her op-ed by pointing out that death “will eventually affect us all. The sooner we start talking about it, the better.”
2/23/2017 At his last press conference, President Trump said his administration is “running like a fine-tuned machine.” But (a) it’s simply not true, and (b) even if it were, the Titanic was a “fine-tuned machine.”
2/20/2017 On February 12, 2017, The New York Times published an article by Jason Horowitz, titled “Fascists Too Lax For a Philosopher Cited by Bannon.” I would like to briefly talk about that article; and this newly-created blog space is now the ideal venue in which to do that.
The article begins by providing some evidence to suggest that Stephen K. Bannon’s passing reference to the late Julius Evola, in a speech at a 2014 Vatican conference that he was invited to speak at, may have been a veiled dog whistle for his “alt-right” Breitbart audience (the “alt-right” helped get Trump elected).
Incidentally, the title of a recent Time magazine feature article (Feb. 13, 2017), asks the question: “Is Steve Bannon the Second Most Powerful Man in the World?”
Getting back to The Times article, Horowitz writes that Evola is regarded as “a leading proponent of Traditionalism, a worldview popular in far-right and alternative religious circles that believes progress and equality are poisonous illusions.”
In the article, Horowitz further states that according to Prof. Richard Drake, of the University of Montana (who wrote about Evola in his book The Revolutionary Mystique and Terrorism in Contemporary Italy), “Evola’s ideal order was based on ‘hierarchy, caste, monarchy, race, myth, religion and ritual.’ ” It’s almost hard to imagine anything more completely the opposite of what I believe in. But wait, it gets worse.
“Evola eventually broke with Mussolini and the Italian Fascists because he considered them overly tame and corrupted by compromise,” Horowitz writes, in an excerpt that explains how the article gets its title. “Instead he preferred the Nazi SS officers, seeing in them something closer to a mythic ideal. They also shared his anti-Semitism.”
All in all, this is a very interesting article. I just wish that they had published it before Election Day. Then, maybe the outcome might have been different.
What you can do:
(1) You can read this website.
(2) If you are a multi-millionaire or billionaire, especially, please read this website!
(3) If you are not a multi-millionaire or billionaire, please
see the green message at the bottom of this page.
(4) There are oceans of information out there just waiting to be discovered or re-discovered. Read! Do independent research! Think! Use your imagination! Make a real difference in the world, and become a change agent for substantive, meaningful change. And remember: when it comes to saving the planet, don’t think small, think BIG!
(5) If you have constructive suggestions for how to improve this website, or on where to advertise (keep in mind, my budget is very tight), please share them. And thanks!