Here is how it works...The way you and your team always put up a concrete wall when it comes to the relatively petty crimes some people do. They need to learn the lesson by suffering the consequences of their choices.
Interesting how the shift in the 'pubs message is now "hey, lets get unified". And do that by trying, yet again, to elude consequences...and investigation, into what happened.
We have tried that path multiple times already.
It does not work.
Rep. Jordan does not see!..
(thread)
Rep. Jordan on potential Trump impeachment: \u2018I do not see how that unifies the country\u2019 https://t.co/GiiQtKTqvv @SundayFutures @FoxNews @Jim_Jordan
— Maria Bartiromo (@MariaBartiromo) January 10, 2021
Here is how it works...The way you and your team always put up a concrete wall when it comes to the relatively petty crimes some people do. They need to learn the lesson by suffering the consequences of their choices.
Looking forward to seeing which 'lambs' will be offered up for this monumental moment.
Eventually
Trump has the option to
However, regardless of how these next few days play out, that investigation that has been called for before Jan6 still needs to happen.
So there
This is what is needed to actually come to national unity. And healing.
One example of the hypocrisy of this plea can be seen in the example of the endless, fruitless, Bengazi
This was a stated goal.
No healing/unity
More from Michael Beaton
Yes. This is the problem.
Irrational anger & outrage which is easily manipulated, as we see being done, into tribal affiliation. Predicated not on some devotion to core ideals & principles of the country, but something else.
Notice what ea side appeals how they express it.
One side largely is moved by wanting a system, a society, a government that is responsive to the situation and needs of the public. This has a number of aspects, from infrastructure, taking care of the environment, BLM, taking care of the 'least among us' &etc.
These folks...
These folks on "the other side"... Not sure what to call this other side. It is a collection of right wing people, some who are simply "members" by affiliation, by tradition, by location in the country...others by reasoned choice.
However they get there, a large % are like this.
Lets call this the Trumpian side, Trumper Cohort, since that is the current center around which these "73M" are organized.
Within this cohort, there are many who are simply "Republicans" by inertia. Their family has been so forever, and so they are too. In actual fact they
do not like what is being done in their name, wonder what happened to the party, but cannot imagine voting for a "Democrat", no more than the feud over Ford vs Chevy would resolve in welcoming in the other 'team'.
These don't really know or und what a "Democrat" is these days,
Irrational anger & outrage which is easily manipulated, as we see being done, into tribal affiliation. Predicated not on some devotion to core ideals & principles of the country, but something else.
Notice what ea side appeals how they express it.
Wait for it, we\u2019re about to unleash 73 MILLION of this guy! https://t.co/34x0rTzC77
— President-Elect Lynn \u2b50\ufe0f\u2b50\ufe0f\u2b50\ufe0f (@lynnemiles01) November 20, 2020
One side largely is moved by wanting a system, a society, a government that is responsive to the situation and needs of the public. This has a number of aspects, from infrastructure, taking care of the environment, BLM, taking care of the 'least among us' &etc.
These folks...
These folks on "the other side"... Not sure what to call this other side. It is a collection of right wing people, some who are simply "members" by affiliation, by tradition, by location in the country...others by reasoned choice.
However they get there, a large % are like this.
Lets call this the Trumpian side, Trumper Cohort, since that is the current center around which these "73M" are organized.
Within this cohort, there are many who are simply "Republicans" by inertia. Their family has been so forever, and so they are too. In actual fact they
do not like what is being done in their name, wonder what happened to the party, but cannot imagine voting for a "Democrat", no more than the feud over Ford vs Chevy would resolve in welcoming in the other 'team'.
These don't really know or und what a "Democrat" is these days,
It is not just wrong
& it is not just the epitome of historical ignorance,
& a comprehensive misunderstanding of the relationship of religious and civil society,
This is the declaration of a much deeper intention of instantiating an "American Fundamentalism".
Think "Gilead".
This is the low information ranting of fundamentalists who lay out the emotional, fact & history free, case for what is essentially an American Taliban.
There is no "compromise" or a sense of comity between differences. When you have "the truth" it is a violation to "compromise".
Others, like "The Grand Inquisitor" use the froth and confusion--and subsequent absolutist certainty of their "righteousness" generated by such as this. (and thus justification for killing/harming anyone who disagrees..In the name of God, of course)
It is useful demagoguery.
This battle has been raging for years. Perhaps forever.
One distinctive characteristic of America, has been keeping this level of fundamentalism out of secular power. Individuals, yes, but not the entire system.
One of the consequences of Trumpism is to equate patriotism w religion in a way that births what becomes a passionately ignorant fundamentalism, unmoored from fact or truth,wedded only to its own self as the measure & guide of truth.
It creates a condition of deep tribal devotion
& it is not just the epitome of historical ignorance,
& a comprehensive misunderstanding of the relationship of religious and civil society,
This is the declaration of a much deeper intention of instantiating an "American Fundamentalism".
Think "Gilead".
Georgia Republican candidate Kandiss Taylor goes full theocracy explaining her \u201cJesus, guns, and babies\u201d slogan:
— PatriotTakes \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 (@patriottakes) April 9, 2022
\u201cDon't talk to me about separation of church and state.\u201d
\u201cWe are the church and we run the state.\u201d
\u201c[Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists] don't get to silence us.\u201d pic.twitter.com/9nkkn3JRbM
This is the low information ranting of fundamentalists who lay out the emotional, fact & history free, case for what is essentially an American Taliban.
There is no "compromise" or a sense of comity between differences. When you have "the truth" it is a violation to "compromise".
Others, like "The Grand Inquisitor" use the froth and confusion--and subsequent absolutist certainty of their "righteousness" generated by such as this. (and thus justification for killing/harming anyone who disagrees..In the name of God, of course)
It is useful demagoguery.
This battle has been raging for years. Perhaps forever.
One distinctive characteristic of America, has been keeping this level of fundamentalism out of secular power. Individuals, yes, but not the entire system.
One of the consequences of Trumpism is to equate patriotism w religion in a way that births what becomes a passionately ignorant fundamentalism, unmoored from fact or truth,wedded only to its own self as the measure & guide of truth.
It creates a condition of deep tribal devotion
The assertion & question of unity, unifying the country, wondering what the hell the problem is, and why is all this happening is taking center stage. Dramatically.
As is the corollary question being tossed about, "How to heal the Nation?".
There is a #systems principle
that is a powerful insight into these, & related, questions.
"You cannot solve a problem at the same level it was created."
If the problem we were solving for were some detail, 'where to place a road; what $ to allocate to this or that project' sort of thing, then the way to
think about the problem, the impasse, is to appeal first to the functions of prior planning, history - meaning what did we do the last time, maybe pragmatics...Eventually, if the organization (whether business, community, or governance) may make a decision and that becomes the
decision. Often, typically, the decision is some sort of amalgam of the various ideas and 'camps' in the room. Rarely, but sometimes, the decision is made out of pure hierarchy..."What the boss says goes, I don't care what you think..." sort of thing. Largely that is old school
and is not the normal way of conflict resolution. Especially in the context of solving a problem.
But a decision is made, and typically people, and the various factions, come together and get to work in the context of the decision. Sometimes called 'teamwork'.
As is the corollary question being tossed about, "How to heal the Nation?".
There is a #systems principle
An excellent piece that raises a key question going forward:
— Bob Geiger (@GeigerNews) January 16, 2021
Should we ever "unify" with the worst among us?
"Unifying with those seeking white supremacy, voter suppression, and government overthrow seems like the very definition of madness."https://t.co/UgmPQfy05F
that is a powerful insight into these, & related, questions.
"You cannot solve a problem at the same level it was created."
If the problem we were solving for were some detail, 'where to place a road; what $ to allocate to this or that project' sort of thing, then the way to
think about the problem, the impasse, is to appeal first to the functions of prior planning, history - meaning what did we do the last time, maybe pragmatics...Eventually, if the organization (whether business, community, or governance) may make a decision and that becomes the
decision. Often, typically, the decision is some sort of amalgam of the various ideas and 'camps' in the room. Rarely, but sometimes, the decision is made out of pure hierarchy..."What the boss says goes, I don't care what you think..." sort of thing. Largely that is old school
and is not the normal way of conflict resolution. Especially in the context of solving a problem.
But a decision is made, and typically people, and the various factions, come together and get to work in the context of the decision. Sometimes called 'teamwork'.
More from For later read
@snip96581187 @Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen Clearly, because as I have been saying for 8 months now, DTRA and DARPA have been using Ecohealth and UC Davis to collect novel pathogens for gain of function work back in the USA. I have documented this in many threads which I will post here just to annoy everyone.
@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
28. Before moving on to DARPA, let's look at DTRA:
— Billy Bostickson \U0001f3f4\U0001f441&\U0001f441 \U0001f193 (@BillyBostickson) July 31, 2020
A must read!
It is astonishing the number of pies they had their dirty little fingers poking into:
Note John Epstein and Kevin Olival from EcoHealth Alliance are key figures in DTRA:https://t.co/O4QwVWrm7m pic.twitter.com/cnNGZ7AApj
@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
24. DTRA Network for Collection of Viruses
— Billy Bostickson \U0001f3f4\U0001f441&\U0001f441 \U0001f193 (@BillyBostickson) January 9, 2021
7. DTRA - Metabiota - One Health - Ecohealth
Bat Research Networks and Viral Surveillance: Gaps and Opportunities in Western Asia pic.twitter.com/SOqSSXF3pa
@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
That is the key question
— Billy Bostickson \U0001f3f4\U0001f441&\U0001f441 \U0001f193 (@BillyBostickson) January 5, 2021
1. DARPA/DTRA use NGOs like Ecohealth or Metabiota to collect new pathogens
2. They are sent to US labs (Mailman, Rocky Mountain, Atlanta CDC, UNC, USAMRIID) for GOF work by Lipkin, Nichols, Rasmussen, Baric, Dension, Munster, etchttps://t.co/wqhHK7uZO6
@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
1. I wonder why Dr. Angela Rasmussen is so so upset & full of almost palpable venom about a Hypothesis and a "What if" question by @nicholsonbaker8 in the @NYMag https://t.co/a6lxtJLpKR
— Billy Bostickson \U0001f3f4\U0001f441&\U0001f441 \U0001f193 (@BillyBostickson) January 5, 2021
Did I hear someone say "DARPA"?
Did I hear someone say "DTRA"?https://t.co/i27mpxJDw2 pic.twitter.com/x4X3QPnTMS
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
