There is a grandeur in this view of life...while this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a begining endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved
Below is a continuation of a Libertarian’s garbled echoes resonating from the ideological rabbit hole:
“This may help you clean up your argumentation so you aren’t just ranting ( I would also like to take a moment to highlight a logical fallacy used while talking about the “hacking”. This is ambiguity meaning using double meanings or ambiguities of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth. The an honest claim would have been Russia hacked John Podesta and the DNC, not Russia hacked the election. Russia hacking the election is a false narrative and misrepresents the truth.”
The parsing of a word from the above ideologue as an underpinning argument refuting or hinting a dubiousness in Russia’s blatant meddling in the 2016 election is, in my humble liberal opinion, the inception of pathological rationalizing with sequela of head spinning syncope. Since he was so magnanimous to fling open the door of condescension, I will take the liberty to pass through: ambiguity is not the word we should be dissecting. What I would suggest is deduction, you know, I assume you know, you should know—-right, Aristotle’s deductive reasoning: a process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises presented, so that the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true.
Now, hacking, myopically defined as the libertarian ideologue has done, but propitiously duplicitous in omitting that the CIA also found hackers, of the Russian persuasion, that breached GOP individuals and organizations prior to the election, including Republicans House members and non profits to the GOP—but, tendentiously, the Russian backed troll farms dripped only the emails colored blue…hmmm, peculiarly suspicious, one who possess sequential logic might mused. Let me be crystal clear, obviously, I wasn’t before, when I articulated the election was hacked by ruskie rogues, I was alluding to Moscow’s sweeping cyber strafing of our democratic electoral process; the emphasis should be on process.
The 17 agencies Air Force Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Coast Guard Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, Energy Department, Homeland Security Department, State Department, Treasury Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Marine Corps Intelligence, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, Navy Intelligence and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence have corroborated and concluded that the recent hacks “are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts, and the thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.”
In the deduction process, we assign culpability (there’s that pesky word again) by connecting the dots. The Russians through cyber sleuth-ness, aka hacking— and— the flagrant face to face meetings for, I don’t know, to talk about the weather with a cadre of Ruskie Reps strongly validates the litany of premises. The Trump players that were jawing with the Putinites were an array of colorful personalities, to include: Flynn, J. D. Gordon, Carter Page, Jeff Sessions, Jared Kushner, etc… so, deductively, if it quacks and walks like a duck, it’s a friggin’ duck, and unambiguously Russia tampered with the 2016 election to the benefit of bat-shit-crazy Trump. To deny this, is wacky doodle.
Feature Writer: Ben R. Hostetter, Studies Creative Writing at Southern Conn. State Univ
I’m a Flying Baby in the 101st Airborne Division, trained for “air assault opera-tions”; our Commanding Officer, Colonel John “The Baby-Dropper” Ham, calls me and my brothers in arms his “Little Angels Without Wings”—among the stuff we’re issued, there aren’t any parachutes, only teething toys, a rattle, an extra pair of diapers, some Gerbers, formula, and a blanket for Nap Time—the Colonel re-minding us, “If you’re good boys and girls, you won’t ask questions,” in case we should ever learn to speak. “Now, look alive.”
The first thing people on Capitol Hill, in DC, want to know—when word gets back to them that Syria’s just been bombed!—is “How many died?” and “Were there any women and children?” because if there weren’t, the POTUS “couldn’t care less”; the unofficial statement, which only Mattis, the Head of the DOD, ’s seen, is “Trump doesn’t get out of bed for anything less than ‘the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you’ve ever seen!’ However, sources close to the man swear, ‘He’ll put off Hitting the Links and hurry back to his war room, at the Mar-a-Lago, if you tell him you’ve got pictures’ (“so yuge, Chief, you won’t believe!”) ‘of all the mothers, sons and daughters killed in the attack’: staged or not, the Donald, our POTUS, can’t help eat that sort of thing up.”
Trump’s approval ratings are down. CNN, MSNBC—all the News Networks are saying, “The people want a president who’ll put his money where his mouth is.”
Bannon, who because of some infighting between him and Kushner, the son-in-law of Trump, is falling (“more and more”), some’re saying, out of favor with our POTUS, tells Mattis, “I may’ve been removed from the National Security Council’s principals committee, but,” the man shaking a finger at Mattis, “I’m not out the door just yet.” Then, crossly: “Ivanka, Jared—they can say what they want,” his forehead slick with sweat. Now, Mattis to Bannon, regarding Syria: “S’pose you got a plan?”
On the Campaign Trail, Trump promised a lot of things to a lot of Ameri-cans, but what really got people going, clapping, cheering, was when he looked them dead in the eye and swore he’d bomb the shit out of anyone who smells like a “bad dude”!
Give the people what they want. “I mean, if it worked for Bush.” “His numbers were down, too.” “That was before Iraq, though.” “But do we need another war?” “Have you seen the economy?” “It’s a-actually not all that bad.” “The Donald’ll thank us later.” “Say you’ve got the pictures?” “I’m having them developed.” “Need ’em to look good now.” “Got to give ’im cause, right.”
Just as the bomb bay doors are about to open, the Colonel says to us, “Ask not what your president can do for you; ask what you can do for your president,” which, as I fall out of the sky and am about to hit the already scorched ground, seems more and more
A young man shot me emails, who is, in my grumpy opinion, enthusiastically misguided and enthralled in the Libertarian ideology; from whence, a projected preferential unfettered free market prevails, private property reigns supreme and an apathetic, no obligation to others are anchored in the platitudes of this, uber individualistic occult . The emails were saturated with philosophical taunts and allegations of liberal political duplicity in the framing of tendentious links of Jabberwocky and accentuated me, me, me selfish mindset.
of a long list of multiple links, which were excoriating the use of a consensus in science—apparently, it’s a thing—in reference to global warming.
Let me be clear on the etiology of this verve by Libertarians to deny empirically buttressed, peer reviewed science of anthropogenic engendered global warming. It sole underpinning is the ideological imbued perception of any government intrusion; “market structuring” if you so please, consumer protection, for example, taint and sully the bastion pillars of free market and property rights, which segues to, if one subscribes to the science that human activity, burning fossil fuels, is causing global warming, then the ethical recourse of corrective action should logically follow—you did it, fix it—but, in doing so, one would have to capitulate to litigative regulations. This, the egregious regulation is utterly a neurotoxin to Libertarians; an assault on their freedom and property. Now, if one were to yield to the obvious, that climate change actually affects everyone, consenting or not, then, according to their very tenets of property rights, the unregulated use of natural resources would be taking liberties of property rights of others, the equivalence of their defined trespassing—we wouldn’t want to condone that inconsideration, would we?
What I am suggesting is, convoluted as it may be, the Libertarians’ denial is a ruse; their disparaging demur that climatologists are an unscrupulous lot, is a counterfeit challenge to the veracity of global warming science. In reality, it’s a sleight of hand gambit of an unwavering ideological advocacy for free market, which, bless their lil’ hearts, spawns the angst of cognitive dissonance. To protect their fringe ideology in lieu of science tested evidence, they categorically, without reservations deny the legitimacy of climate science. Libertarian’s sophistry clouds cast shadows of chicanery.
To the marrow of my enguard argument, let us first scrutinize the megaphonic personalities of the two above links: James Taylor, an attorney, not the singer, and Micheal Crichton, the renown, successful SciFi writer; really—so, a shyster of the Heartland Institute funded by the petroleum industry ExxonMobile and a Harvard Medical School graduate, who wrote fiction, let me reiterate that specific word: “fiction”, preferably over practicing medicine , and one could/should allude that they are “Practitioners of Embellishment”! Hmmm, two flamboyant personalities gifted in promulgating the fallacious surreal; in simple colloquialism: liars. Too harsh, well, lets review what the shyster, James Taylor, who suggested he’s a bonafide scientist because of completing a couple of science classes, which credential him, in his humble opinion, to the station of peer to practicing climatologist and legitimate critiquer of climate research with the proclamation “I successfully completed Ivy League atmospheric science courses, so I’m a scientist by training.” Their must be a lot of scientist bumping in the dark with that low bar. Now, the good Doctor, fiction writer extraodinare, self besmirch his bleached white reputation with the 2004 publication of the fallacious, alternative fact ridden novel, State of Fear bycasting calumnies on both climate science and scientists. Now, admittedly, this is a book of fiction, but ole’ Mikey used this book as a springboard to suffuse dubiousness on the peer reviewed science and blemish the integrity of climatologist. One would hope, if you were to be critical of something or someone, you would have a scintilla of appreciation of the topic’s basics; however, Mikey’s nescience of climatology was publicly burped in the book’s climax when the horrible bad, sinister, diabolical environmentalists were going to reck havoc by triggering a seismic tsunami–but–seismic tsunamis are caused by earth tremors, not by global warming. Any climatologist worth his salt knows that, right? A full factual debunking of the book can be found on real climate.org: “Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion II: Return of the Science” and “Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion.”
The IV serum of incertitude puncturing the vein of the public is magnanimously provided by the unscrupulous two faced ExxonMobile petroleum industry to induce a symptomatic dubiousness on climate science, which perpetrate stalling strategies of any mitigating legislation to preclude deleterious harm to the environment; consequently, affording them more time to drill and foul for more oil. The disingenuous canard that science consensus is a fallacy is on public display when, good ole’ Mikey, speaking in petroleum linguistics, exclaims his tendentiousness and exemplifies strategy of duplicity, with:
“In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results? The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If its science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
Unequivocally, science consensus and the theory of Global Warming exist, in spite of Jimmie’s and Mikey’s petroleum putrid prevarication polemical. Why am I so confident in this asseveration; well, let me count the ways: American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Geological Society of America, American Chemical Society, US Nat Academy of Sciences, International academies with all the accompanying scientific journals/periodicals…and, the double dealing, duplicitous ExxonMobile on their web site clearly intimates:
The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.
ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options.
Addressing climate change, providing economic opportunity and lifting billions out of poverty are complex and interrelated issues requiring complex solutions. There is a consensus that comprehensive strategies are needed to respond to these risks.
The preponderance of professionals who are actually scientist and do what scientist do, and have a clue, tip the scales of reasoning and without reservations are complicit with the unambiguous science consensus of global warming and the nuts and bolts of its empiricalness.
Now, I realize, no matter what I have written above, will not, sway you an iota, the “Libertarian blighted”, for you are so entrenched down the rabbit hole of your ideology, its figuratively subterrian to Alice’s Wonderland, where a talking tardy rabbit obsessing about time, Caterpillar smoking a hookah waxing philosophically, and a Gryphon defines uglification reside in surrealism, and undoubtedly, you will dismiss flippantly with a gesticulating hand the entirety of science and its peer scrutinizing method, availing the way we explicate the natural world and advance civilization. For, much to your chagrin, the existence of microscopes, cars, and airplanes verify the veracity of the method of science and its practitioners.
TO BE CONTINUE: I WILL ADDRESS THE OTHER LINKS IN SUBSEQUENT ESSAYS..
A young man shot me emails, who is, in my grumpy opinion, enthusiastically misguided and enthralled in the Libertarian ideology; from whence, a projected preferential unfettered free market prevails, private property reigns supreme and an apathetic, no obligation to others are anchored in the platitudes of this, uber individualistic occult . The emails were saturated with philosophical taunts and allegations of liberal political duplicity in the framing of tendentious links of Jabberwocky and accentuated me, me, me selfish mindset.
of a long list of multiple links, which were excoriating the use of a consensus in science—apparently, it’s a thing—in reference to global warming.
Let me be clear on the etiology of this verve by Libertarians to deny empirically buttressed, peer reviewed science of anthropogenic engendered global warming. It sole underpinning is the ideological imbued perception of any government intrusion; “market structuring” if you so please, consumer protection, for example, taint and sully the bastion pillars of free market and property rights, which segues to, if one subscribes to the science that human activity, burning fossil fuels, is causing global warming, then the ethical recourse of corrective action should logically follow—you did it, fix it—but, in doing so, one would have to capitulate to litigative regulations. This, the egregious regulation is utterly a neurotoxin to Libertarians; an assault on their freedom and property. Now, if one were to yield to the obvious, that climate change actually affects everyone, consenting or not, then, according to their very tenets of property rights, the unregulated use of natural resources would be taking liberties of property rights of others, the equivalence of their defined trespassing—we wouldn’t want to condone that inconsideration, would we?
What I am suggesting is, convoluted as it may be, the Libertarians’ denial is a ruse; their disparaging demur that climatologists are an unscrupulous lot, is a counterfeit challenge to the veracity of global warming science. In reality, it’s a sleight of hand gambit of an unwavering ideological advocacy for free market, which, bless their lil’ hearts, spawns the angst of cognitive dissonance. To protect their fringe ideology in lieu of science tested evidence, they categorically, without reservations deny the legitimacy of climate science. Libertarian’s sophistry clouds cast shadows of chicanery.
To the marrow of my enguard argument, let us first scrutinize the megaphonic personalities of the two above links: James Taylor, an attorney, not the singer, and Micheal Crichton, the renown, successful SciFi writer; really—so, a shyster of the Heartland Institute funded by the petroleum industry ExxonMobile and a Harvard Medical School graduate, who wrote fiction, let me reiterate that specific word: “fiction”, preferably over practicing medicine , and one could/should allude that they are “Practitioners of Embellishment”! Hmmm, two flamboyant personalities gifted in promulgating the fallacious surreal; in simple colloquialism: liars. Too harsh, well, lets review what the shyster, James Taylor, who suggested he’s a bonafide scientist because of completing a couple of science classes, which credential him, in his humble opinion, to the station of peer to practicing climatologist and legitimate critiquer of climate research with the proclamation “I successfully completed Ivy League atmospheric science courses, so I’m a scientist by training.” Their must be a lot of scientist bumping in the dark with that low bar. Now, the good Doctor, fiction writer extraodinare, self besmirch his bleached white reputation with the 2004 publication of the fallacious, alternative fact ridden novel, State of Fear bycasting calumnies on both climate science and scientists. Now, admittedly, this is a book of fiction, but ole’ Mikey used this book as a springboard to suffuse dubiousness on the peer reviewed science and blemish the integrity of climatologist. One would hope, if you were to be critical of something or someone, you would have a scintilla of appreciation of the topic’s basics; however, Mikey’s nescience of climatology was publicly burped in the book’s climax when the horrible bad, sinister, diabolical environmentalists were going to reck havoc by triggering a seismic tsunami–but–seismic tsunamis are caused by earth tremors, not by global warming. Any climatologist worth his salt knows that, right? A full factual debunking of the book can be found on real climate.org: “Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion II: Return of the Science” and “Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion.”
The IV serum of incertitude puncturing the vein of the public is magnanimously provided by the unscrupulous two faced ExxonMobile petroleum industry to induce a symptomatic dubiousness on climate science, which perpetrate stalling strategies of any mitigating legislation to preclude deleterious harm to the environment; consequently, affording them more time to drill and foul for more oil. The disingenuous canard that science consensus is a fallacy is on public display when, good ole’ Mikey, speaking in petroleum linguistics, exclaims his tendentiousness and exemplifies strategy of duplicity, with:
“In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results? The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If its science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
Unequivocally, science consensus and the theory of Global Warming exist, in spite of Jimmie’s and Mikey’s petroleum putrid prevarication polemical. Why am I so confident in this asseveration; well, let me count the ways: American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Geological Society of America, American Chemical Society, US Nat Academy of Sciences, International academies with all the accompanying scientific journals/periodicals…and, the double dealing, duplicitous ExxonMobile on their web site clearly intimates:
The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.
ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options.
Addressing climate change, providing economic opportunity and lifting billions out of poverty are complex and interrelated issues requiring complex solutions. There is a consensus that comprehensive strategies are needed to respond to these risks.
The preponderance of professionals who are actually scientist and do what scientist do, and have a clue, tip the scales of reasoning and without reservations are complicit with the unambiguous science consensus of global warming and the nuts and bolts of its empiricalness.
Now, I realize, no matter what I have written above, will not, sway you an iota, the “Libertarian blighted”, for you are so entrenched down the rabbit hole of your ideology, its figuratively subterrian to Alice’s Wonderland, where a talking tardy rabbit obsessing about time, Caterpillar smoking a hookah waxing philosophically, and a Gryphon defines uglification reside in surrealism, and undoubtedly, you will dismiss flippantly with a gesticulating hand the entirety of science and its peer scrutinizing method, availing the way we explicate the natural world and advance civilization. For, much to your chagrin, the existence of microscopes, cars, and airplanes verify the veracity of the method of science and its practitioners.
TO BE CONTINUE: I WILL ADDRESS THE OTHER LINKS IN SUBSEQUENT ESSAYS..
A young man shot me emails, who is, in my grumpy opinion, enthusiastically misguided and enthralled in the Libertarian ideology; from whence, a projected preferential unfettered free market prevails, private property reigns supreme and an apathetic, no obligation to others are anchored in the platitudes of this, uber individualistic occult . The emails were saturated with philosophical taunts and allegations of liberal political duplicity in the framing of tendentious links of Jabberwocky and accentuated me, me, me selfish mindset.
of a long list of multiple links, which were excoriating the use of a consensus in science—apparently, it’s a thing—in reference to global warming.
Let me be clear on the etiology of this verve by Libertarians to deny empirically buttressed, peer reviewed science of anthropogenic engendered global warming. It sole underpinning is the ideological imbued perception of any government intrusion; “market structuring” if you so please, consumer protection, for example, taint and sully the bastion pillars of free market and property rights, which segues to, if one subscribes to the science that human activity, burning fossil fuels, is causing global warming, then the ethical recourse of corrective action should logically follow—you did it, fix it—but, in doing so, one would have to capitulate to litigative regulations. This, the egregious regulation is utterly a neurotoxin to Libertarians; an assault on their freedom and property. Now, if one were to yield to the obvious, that climate change actually affects everyone, consenting or not, then, according to their very tenets of property rights, the unregulated use of natural resources would be taking liberties of property rights of others, the equivalence of their defined trespassing—we wouldn’t want to condone that inconsideration, would we?
What I am suggesting is, convoluted as it may be, the Libertarians’ denial is a ruse; their disparaging demur that climatologists are an unscrupulous lot, is a counterfeit challenge to the veracity of global warming science. In reality, it’s a sleight of hand gambit of an unwavering ideological advocacy for free market, which, bless their lil’ hearts, spawns the angst of cognitive dissonance. To protect their fringe ideology in lieu of science tested evidence, they categorically, without reservations deny the legitimacy of climate science. Libertarian’s sophistry clouds cast shadows of chicanery.
To the marrow of my enguard argument, let us first scrutinize the megaphonic personalities of the two above links: James Taylor, an attorney, not the singer, and Micheal Crichton, the renown, successful SciFi writer; really—so, a shyster of the Heartland Institute funded by the petroleum industry ExxonMobile and a Harvard Medical School graduate, who wrote fiction, let me reiterate that specific word: “fiction”, preferably over practicing medicine , and one could/should allude that they are “Practitioners of Embellishment”! Hmmm, two flamboyant personalities gifted in promulgating the fallacious surreal; in simple colloquialism: liars. Too harsh, well, lets review what the shyster, James Taylor, who suggested he’s a bonafide scientist because of completing a couple of science classes, which credential him, in his humble opinion, to the station of peer to practicing climatologist and legitimate critiquer of climate research with the proclamation “I successfully completed Ivy League atmospheric science courses, so I’m a scientist by training.” Their must be a lot of scientist bumping in the dark with that low bar. Now, the good Doctor, fiction writer extraodinare, self besmirch his bleached white reputation with the 2004 publication of the fallacious, alternative fact ridden novel, State of Fear bycasting calumnies on both climate science and scientists. Now, admittedly, this is a book of fiction, but ole’ Mikey used this book as a springboard to suffuse dubiousness on the peer reviewed science and blemish the integrity of climatologist. One would hope, if you were to be critical of something or someone, you would have a scintilla of appreciation of the topic’s basics; however, Mikey’s nescience of climatology was publicly burped in the book’s climax when the horrible bad, sinister, diabolical environmentalists were going to reck havoc by triggering a seismic tsunami–but–seismic tsunamis are caused by earth tremors, not by global warming. Any climatologist worth his salt knows that, right? A full factual debunking of the book can be found on real climate.org: “Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion II: Return of the Science” and “Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion.”
The IV serum of incertitude puncturing the vein of the public is magnanimously provided by the unscrupulous two faced ExxonMobile petroleum industry to induce a symptomatic dubiousness on climate science, which perpetrate stalling strategies of any mitigating legislation to preclude deleterious harm to the environment; consequently, affording them more time to drill and foul for more oil. The disingenuous canard that science consensus is a fallacy is on public display when, good ole’ Mikey, speaking in petroleum linguistics, exclaims his tendentiousness and exemplifies strategy of duplicity, with:
“In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results? The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If its science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
Unequivocally, science consensus and the theory of Global Warming exist, in spite of Jimmie’s and Mikey’s petroleum putrid prevarication polemical. Why am I so confident in this asseveration; well, let me count the ways: American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Geological Society of America, American Chemical Society, US Nat Academy of Sciences, International academies with all the accompanying scientific journals/periodicals…and, the double dealing, duplicitous ExxonMobile on their web site clearly intimates:
The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.
ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options.
Addressing climate change, providing economic opportunity and lifting billions out of poverty are complex and interrelated issues requiring complex solutions. There is a consensus that comprehensive strategies are needed to respond to these risks.
The preponderance of professionals who are actually scientist and do what scientist do, and have a clue, tip the scales of reasoning and without reservations are complicit with the unambiguous science consensus of global warming and the nuts and bolts of its empiricalness.
Now, I realize, no matter what I have written above, will not, sway you an iota, the “Libertarian blighted”, for you are so entrenched down the rabbit hole of your ideology, its figuratively subterrian to Alice’s Wonderland, where a talking tardy rabbit obsessing about time, Caterpillar smoking a hookah waxing philosophically, and a Gryphon defines uglification reside in surrealism, and undoubtedly, you will dismiss flippantly with a gesticulating hand the entirety of science and its peer scrutinizing method, availing the way we explicate the natural world and advance civilization. For, much to your chagrin, the existence of microscopes, cars, and airplanes verify the veracity of the method of science and its practitioners.
TO BE CONTINUE: I WILL ADDRESS THE OTHER LINKS IN SUBSEQUENT ESSAYS..
Trump’s erratic executive orders are puerile and vindictively penned, imbued of a malodorous unconstitutionality—intoxicatingly spurred by the methane gas percolating from the delusional alt-right soggy swamp network, Breitbart; which is, effusive of fake news and riddled with Orwellian 1984 alternative facts. Trump’s inner circle confidants, which are flagrantly sullied of nepotism, are the conduits of the dictums dregs of disaster— and, to exacerbate the insanity, cabinet choices wreak and permeate with ethically challenged, scurrilous plutocrats that are historically unempathetic to the laborer and exhibit no compunction to scalp benefits, and if the bottom line profligate profit is in jeopardy, the populous blue collar will capriciously be discarded, as if, they were trash: For all you ideologues of unregulated capitalism, everything is dispensable, absolute nothing usurps the supremacy of the almighty profit. Hear me when I say, more accurately, read me, The White House, not so much; the white edifice is now besmirched and smudged—the historical corridors are infiltrated by interlopers of this pernicious economic philosophy of oxidizing from the cash-strapped penuries to fill the ostentatious coffers of plutocrats.
Trump’s insidious choices for cabinet positions, unabashedly personify the idiom “fox guarding the hen house” which has probably engendered in the, racing to retirement, baby boomers, more cases of alopecia-like symptoms, hypertension, and angina than any imprudent lifestyle. Of the carnival carnies cabinet applicants, the sword-swallowers that were centered stage and docketed as the main act: Jeff Sessions, Betsy DeVos, Tom Price, Rex Tillerson, Rick Perry and Scott Pruit—this list of carnies could continue, but I’m getting a headache, there is a twinge in my chest, and lumps of hair are falling on the keyboard…
Looking for strategies on how to meld the essay in the blog format, I came upon Nijhuis how to book. Her hook; the attention getter, was the simile of an experiment like an essay and crafting it as another venue/mode of inquiry pursuing facts. This very much appealed to me as a biologist and a neophyte blogger. The book dissects the anatomy of an essay and how to Siren in readers.
Hopefully, her suggestions will be the nuggets to attract a faithful readership
In my backyard is a Pond. Gold Fish inhabit it—along with— other transient interlopers. This pond has been exposed to many cycles of the four seasons and its age is affirmed by the lush bulbous outcroppings of sphagnum moss on the once, naked rocks. There are two waterfalls that feed into the shallow pond; the large, with a shower head velocity and the smaller, a trickling languidness. The boundary’s of the pool are fortified in irregularly shaped rocks with starring crevices, as if, multiple eyes of a crowd were glaring, individualized by weather coiffed epiphytes. The confrontation to serenity by the rambunctious rambling currents of manifold waterfalls is contravened by the statuesque pose of near dormant teleost spied as apparitions with blurred silhouettes under a thinly veiled iced pond.
Contrasting the morphometrics of Walden with Carassius: a quote from the classic Walden where Thoreau stipulated in the chapter Ponds, that Walden Pond was…”a clear and deep green well, half a mile long and a mile and three-quarters in circumferences, and contained about sixty-one-a half acres…” and, the depth was quantified in chapter Pond in the Winter, in which, in an effort by ole’ Henry’s to demystify that the pond was bottomless, too the grandiose surreal embellishment that it’s depth extended through the core of the planet to the other side, the destination, your guess it, the exotic realms of the orient, he took a cod-line and stone weighing about a pound and a half and dropped it through a pre-cut hole in the ice. “The greatest depth was exactly one hundred and two feet…”
The Carassius Pond in comparative size to Walden is likened to a putt putt golf course to an authentic golf course; wherein, The Carassius Pond is a measurement in the prime numbers, saving the depth: L 13′ W 11′ D 4′—acres v a stamp size backyard.
The commonality of Walden and Carassius is, it is a site to observe nature and to pontificate; discerning between correlation and causation…hmmm, I just thought of something…
The good ole’ boys, the rural white working class **this is not, in any way to dismiss the onus of responsibility of a Trump election from the urban rust belt persuasion, it’s just, my experience of the city dwellers, sports bar lounge lizards are limited, to non-existence, which realigns my focus with the country bumpkin crowd—you know, the one’s that work their frigging ass off, drive trucks and are packin’— apparently think— government’s largess spending is channeled “exclusively”, to hear some talk, to the less deserving that are bitterly labeled as indolent, unemployed parasites, and those people of color. I’m almost sure Breibart News could reference a slithering source by toppling a rock releasing the denizens of muck, the ignominious troll, the dreg agent that would with glee cyber trigger countless bot apps with a startling regenerative capacity conferring that maybe, an inherent preponderance of melanocytes might predisposition individuals to turpitude and torpidity. Am I inferring racism/bigotry, hmmmmm with an uncomfortable pensiveness, reticent a contrite embarrassing yes. Fifty-three years have passed since Lyndon B Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act to our first black president Barack Obama, and still, the taint of intolerance obstinately lingers.
Let me be clear, I’m one of those good ole’ boys; my commonality is, being part of the herd of the white middle class who work for a livin’ with smudges of black dirt under the finger nails and drive a big red truck. Yet, unlike my brethren truckers, I’m immensely appreciative of Government Programs that assist us, unbeknownst to them—it appears—and to the less fortunate. Anchored economically in the middle class bracket with limited resources and a penchant toward liberal tendentiousness of the golden rules: due onto others as you wish them to unto you— and— you are your brothers keeper, my pittance of a contribution in taxes with the collective citizenship can/does expand health insurance subsidies for the penury; invest in the expansive range and scope of the education system [in all districts] for the public and state schools that included Pell grants, market adjusted salaries for teachers, and infrastructure, etc.… which benefits and transcends all economic classes; continuing with some of the many, of the other so called “non-defense discretionary spending” includes rental vouchers for low income families, programs to fight homelessness, job training (think veterans), Head Start for young children; the list can continue with also, culture enhancing subsidies for museums, libraries, and parks…point being, this indulgence in judgeeeness’ a perception that the next door neighbor or the family across the tracks are livin’ a little too high on the hog with subsidies, above there means, if you will, evokes this gnawing, retching visceral animus [I only assume] that government spending is bad, even if the programs benefit them—and so—anything that smells of the government should be condemned and obliterated. Well, how should I put this askance misperception obliquely, all the hell with it, it does not economically behoove them and can easily be interpreted as self-immolating.
The other issue that confounds me to distraction is, why anyone would spit/cast dispersions on an organization/s, government agencies, that are designed to have your back, protect you and your family. A sampling of the government’s metaphorical armor are: the Dept of Health and Human Serv; which include, Centers for Disease Control, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Serv., Healthcare Infection Control Practices, Food and Drug Admin, which test every morsel you shove in your mouth and, one of my favorites, National Institute of Health which endeavor in conducting and supporting medical research, can you say the Genome Project. Dept of Labor to include, Occupational Safety and Health Admin—keeping you presumably safe at work…and, the one that everyone loves to despise EPA, which regulates spewing toxins or clandestine laced products with agents that triggers uncontrollable cell growth, a mutative physiological response commonly refer to as cancer. I am confident you have read countless horror stories of unsuspecting citizens, neighbors, and family members exposed to the pernicious, carcinogenic elements of mercury, lead, asbestosis …etc, the list is a long one. Taking a tangential turn towards consumer protections, we have the Fed Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection bureau which ensure fair debt collection, fair credit reporting, full disclose in truth and lending and fair credit billing. The above is just a smattering of what our ‘deplorable Orwellian’ government does for you with your taxes, which some feel are extorted under the intimidation of a punitive fine or incarceration.
To reiterate my befuddlement of this deep seeded resentment of the government from the very citizens that would benefit the most from its infrastructure and support, they seem, oblivious to the fact that Corporate America, the multinationals, show no compunction or shame leaning on the crutch of capital, citizens’ money, in the form of subsidies; according to the International Monetary Fund the Fossil Fuel Industry were awarded $700 billion in spite of quarterly profits in the billions, this is from the big bad intrusive, dictatorial government—and, they, pay virtually no taxes because legal beagle mercenaries with sleight of hand employ sleuthing legalese of transfer pricing and profit shifting.
Let’s be clear of what part of the bicameral government is in your corner. I realize that I might be sending a mix morass message of simultaneously snuggling up and staving off the government; to which, in my earnest effort to be lucid and transparent, will hopefully be more forthright in an engaging Socratic format by imploring you to skeptically scrutinize what party is pro affordable education, health is a right not a privilege, marriage equality for all citizens, science is a fact and not dictated by the bottom line profit, labor collective bargaining for salaries and benefits [companies are not magnanimous] strong stewardess of the environment to include all its critters and an unfailing advocacy for diversity of women’s rights, civil rights regardless of skin pigment, religious inclinations and sexual orientation. I feel intimating the name of party of the people, would be, ever so redundant.
Knocking down a brew and rethinking long and hard about why my fellow truckers, rural and urban, who would engage the wrong organ; duodenal in lieu of a dura matter to decide the political persuasion that best insure their prosperity and health, still draws a blank. Maybe, a second beer will liberate lucidity—nope—I suspect, not even a case of beer would illuminate the rationale of gut thinking. Mind my prescience words, my fellow blue-collarian, elevated-riddin‘ truckers, the changin’ the Trumpster’ promised will be your frequently soiled skivvies engendered by the cra cra klepotcratic plutocrats, soon to be running our government. Imminently, you will appreciate the real applicability of the gastrointestinal system; ruling out philosophical pondering.
The parsing of a word from the above ideologue as an underpinning argument refuting or hinting a dubiousness in Russia’s blatant meddling in the 2016 election is, in my humble liberal opinion, the inception of pathological rationalizing with sequela of head spinning syncope. Since he was so magnanimous to fling open the door of condescension, I will take the liberty to pass through: ambiguity is not the word we should be dissecting. What I would suggest is deduction, you know, I assume you know, you should know—-right, Aristotle’s deductive reasoning: a process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises presented, so that the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true.
