THE NATURE OF RIGHTEOUS ANGER

OPEN DEBATE about RIGHTEOUS ANGER

September 25, 2020

 WE ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THIS:

ANGER is the new prevailing Emotion we are feeling, not just in the U.S. but everywhere, but yeah, as one President would say "BIGLY" in the U.S.

IT has, unfortunately, made us unable or unwilling to engage in civil debate, as we are quick to lash out at views that don't perfectly align with our own, OR even when they do, if those views are not expressed in a "correct" way, we still lash out.

WE ARE FEELING RIGHTEOUS ANGER.

WE are fed up with the climate change deniers, with the anti-maskers, with Trump supporters and his minion, but we also are fed up with ANYONE who isn't completely on board with our views on just about any other topic that might arise: Black Lives Matter, criminal justice, abortion rights, LGTBQ rights, and so forth (the list of things we can feel Righteous Anger about can be endless - just pick your medicine). Being aware that those on the Right are also angry when certain topics arise.

SO - if say, ONE person expresses a particular view about the nature of anger, such as:

ANGER IS ROOTED IN FEAR 

https://dispol.blogspot.com/2020/09/anger-is-rooted-in-fear.html

THEN how dare the author even make such an argument, because, damn it! I have a right to my anger!

AND my anger is justified!

BUT, one person's opinion on the nature of anger is just THAT PERSON'S opinion, and you can easily find a contravening opinion like this one:

In the end the most powerful tool that any of us have is our own voice and our own choices and how we intend to use them. I’m fucking furious. Why shouldn’t I let the world know? If I don’t, how can I expect it to change? 

https://www.glamour.com/story/how-i-got-over-my-fear-of-being-difficult-online

DEFINITELY WORTH A READ FOLKS, but all in all, just a different opinion on the nature of "ANGER" which we should be able to agree with or disagree with, without other people getting angry with us for agreeing or not agreeing with the author.

RIGHTEOUS ANGER I THOUGHT, was more of a religious term:

What Does the Bible Mean by ‘Righteous’ Anger?

https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/bible-study/what-does-the-bible-mean-by-righteous-anger.html

HOWEVER, it is now more widely used by all kinds of people, religious or otherwise, regardless too of political persuasion.

WE ALL FEEL IT, WE ARE ANGRY!!

But there are legitimate arguments to be made that our anger might be borne of FEAR, or that adversely, that it is NOT borne of fear, but justifiable.

SO HOW ABOUT AN OPEN DISCUSSION?

When is anger justifiable or when is it not?

Is it fair to use anger in a debate when you disagree with someone else's point of view?

Is an angry response always the best response?

OR, does anger overwhelm you? 

A Cancer on Governance: Politicizing National Security Functions

Page 1 of 18 of Ms. Knight's letter to the court

alleging DoJ lies and misconduct before the court 

(pages 2 and 3 shown below)

Amidst all the chaos and crisis, this may not be high on most people’s radar screens. Nonetheless, it merits at least a mention. The New York Times reported on what seems to be another whistleblower outing the corrupt sleaze that characterizes the president’s vision of how government should operate. In his view, government should operate for his best interests, the country, democracy, American’s safety and well-being, and even the rule of law be damned. 

This episode of corrupt sleaze is in connection with the book John Bolton published over strenuous White House objections. The excuse was inclusion of national security information in his book. A federal judge was already written in a court document in a federal case charging Bolton with national security crimes that he believes that Bolton broke the law. Based on what the NYT is reporting, the judge has allegedly been lied to and deceived by the Department of Justice (DoJ). The NYT writes in an article, White House Accused of Improperly Politicizing Review of John Bolton’s Book: 

“White House aides improperly intervened to prevent a manuscript by President Trump’s former national security adviser John R. Bolton from becoming public, a career official said in a letter filed in court on Wednesday, accusing them of making false assertions that Mr. Bolton had revealed classified material and suggesting that they retaliated when she refused to go along.

The disclosures by the official who oversaw the book’s prepublication review, Ellen Knight, were the latest in a series of accounts by current and former executive branch officials as the election nears accusing the president and his aides of putting his personal and political goals ahead of the public interest and of an evenhanded application of the rule of law.

In an extraordinary 18-page document, a lawyer for Ms. Knight portrays the Trump administration as handling its response to the book in bad faith. Her account implied that the Justice Department may have told a court that the book contains classified information — and opened a criminal investigation into Mr. Bolton — based on false pretenses.
She also said an aide to Mr. Trump “instructed her to temporarily withhold any response” to a request from Mr. Bolton to review a chapter on the president’s dealings with Ukraine so it could be released during the impeachment trial, wrote Ms. Knight’s lawyer, Kenneth L. Wainstein.

He said that his client had determined in April that Mr. Bolton’s book, “The Room Where It Happened,” no longer contained any classified information, but the “apolitical process” was then “commandeered by political appointees for a seemingly political purpose” to go after Mr. Bolton. The actions she was asked to take were “unprecedented in her experience,” the letter said.

The Justice Department defended the review process and the White House’s decision to deem the materials in Mr. Bolton’s book classified, citing sworn statements by national security officials. “The publication of a memoir by a former national security adviser, right after his departure, is an unprecedented action, and it is not surprising that National Security Council staff would pay close attention to ensure that the book does not contain the release of classified information,” said a department spokeswoman, Kerri Kupec.” 

Notice that the DoJ statement by Ms. Kupec does not assert that Bolton’s book contains any nartional security information. It is possible that Ms. Kupec is exaggerating or lying when she asserts that Bolton’s book publication was an unprecedented action. It is not clear that Kupec’s statement is even relevant because Bolton took pains to have his book reviewed and cleared in advance for national security reasons. 

The NYT article also notes that Ms. Knight, who was a government classification expert, alleged “that political appointees repeatedly asked her to sign a declaration to use against Mr. Bolton that made false assertions. She said that after her refusal, she was reassigned from the White House despite earlier expectations that she would transition to a permanent position there.”

Since Ms. Knight has submitted a statement to the court, she is probably on the hook for perjury if she lies in the statement. On the other hand, the president and his aides do not hesitate to lie when it suites them, including when it makes no sense to lie. Given horrendous the track record of lies and deceit by the president and his enablers and the relevant circumstances for Ms. Knight, it is rational and fair to believe that Ms. Knight is credible, and the DoJ is lying for political reasons to serve the president. 

Unless this matter gets somehow swept under the rug and completely disappears, time will tell who is lying and who isn’t. 

ANGER IS ROOTED IN FEAR

 

By Christina Pierce

https://www.hubcityspokes.com/anger-rooted-fear#sthash.vCFpwDrx.MxqJ8rty.dpbs

I’ve always been very slow to anger. I used to joke that you would have to hit me upside the head with a two-by-four to make me mad. I’ve had the experience of realizing, days and weeks after the fact, that someone was nasty to me. And it always surprises me because I just don’t see it when it happens.

Earlier this week I found myself angry twice in the space of an hour. The first time was courtesy of the guy in the red Silverado who did his best to run me off Highway 11. Hope he got where he was going without loss of life or limb. The second time was shortly after as I was walking my German Shepard. Riley usually minds, but the lure of the rabbit running at full speed directly towards Highway 589 was too strong to resist. My screams finally got his attention, and he stopped short of the highway.

I dealt with the first incident by blowing my horn at the Silverado for a full 10 seconds, no doubt disturbing innocent bystanders trying to enjoy their steaks at Sully’s. The second I dealt with by yelling at my poor dog all the way back to the house, where I remembered that I love him and made amends with an extra treat.

I realized later that, in both cases, my anger was born of fear: fear of having a wreck and fear of losing my precious pet. And I realized that it is no wonder that we are all, or at least many of us are, angry. We’re scared. We’re scared of COVID-19, which didn’t even exist this time last year. We’re scared of the polarization between our political parties and what that might lead to. We’re scared of looters and rioters, and the looters and rioters are scared of the police. 

All of this fear leads to a whole lot of anger. Anger doesn’t feel good, but it beats the heck out of fear. There is a helpless aspect to fear, and anger at least lets us feel like we are in charge. Anger feels like we can take action, and fear feels like we are cowering.

I’m trying to remember this as I find myself leaning towards feeling angry with people who don’t share my worldview. It can be scary when the things you believe are true are challenged, but anger is counterproductive.

The imminently wise Yoda said it best, “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

The next time I feel angry, I am going to take a minute to ask myself what I’m afraid of, and if there isn’t a better way to confront my fear than anger. I probably won’t ask an angry person, “What are you afraid of?” because that most likely would not end well. But I can meet anger with compassion, understanding that it is most likely based in fear.

Trump’s Plan: There Will be no Transition of Power, Only a Continuation

Trump refusing to lose the election even if he loses -- 

“get rid of the ballots” 

In recent days, the president has blandly stated that there will be no transition of power, only a continuation of his rule. He plans to go straight to republican state legislatures to have them ignore the popular vote in their states. He calls the upcoming vote a rigged hoax. As usual, the president's false allegation is not supported by any evidence. Instead of going with the popular vote, republican legislatures will pick republican electors for the electoral college vote. That will negate any popular vote loss in battleground states with republican legislatures.

Unfortunately, doing what the president proposes appears to be legal. The constitution states that legislatures have the power to pick electoral college electors. It says nothing about paying any attention to how people in the state actually vote. This is another of those norms that used to help hold the states and the American people together. It is another toothless democratic tradition that the president wants to do away with.  

The New York Times reports on the president’s comments at a news conference. In response to a question about whether there would be a peaceful transfer of power if the loses the election, the president said: “We’re going to have to see what happens. You know that I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots, and the ballots are a disaster. .... Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation.” 

The NYT also reports that on Wednesday, the president said that “he needed to swiftly confirm a successor for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg because he expected disputes over the election result to be resolved by the Supreme Court, which could split 4-to-4 if a ninth justice is not seated.”

That is how the president plans to win the 2020 election. And that is apparently at least partly why the president and the GOP senate are in a rush to put another radical conservative judge on the supreme court. What the majority of the American people want is of no concern to the president and maybe also GOP politicians. This is what the continuing fall of American democracy looks like. This may be what the president’s supporters are willing to accept to stay in power.

This is what the tyranny of the minority looks like. It isn't clear to me how likely this scheme will come to pass and throw the election to Trump. Increasingly, one has to look to the president’s supporters and ask what are they thinking and how much more damage to democracy and the rule of law they are willing to accept in their desperate efforts to hold back natural social and demographic changes. 

Are most Trump supporters really willing to trash democracy and the rule of law to stop the future from happening? Maybe the election and its immediate aftermath will tell. They have shown that they are open to the idea of trashing facts, truths, sound reasoning, respect for political opposition and a free press. How much farther down the road to an incompetent, kleptocratic tyranny are they willing to go?

The GOP Wants to Help the Green Party

The GOP is a principled, high road party

Bipolar for president

In its burning desire to keep the White House in GOP hands, the party is working hard to help the Green Party get on the ballot in battleground states. The idea is to drain democratic votes away from Biden. Maybe the democrats should be helping the libertarians get on the ballot in battleground states. It is not clear who should be helping Kanye West get on the ballot anywhere. The New York Times writes:

“Four years ago, the Green Party candidate played a significant role in several crucial battleground states, drawing a vote total in three of them — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — that exceeded the margin between Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton.

This year, the Republican Party has been trying to use the Green Party to its advantage again, if not always successfully.

In Wisconsin, a G.O.P. elections commissioner and lawyers with ties to Republicans tried to aid attempts by Howie Hawkins, the current Green Party presidential candidate, to get on the ballot there, which were ultimately unsuccessful. In Montana, state regulators found that the Republican Party violated campaign finance laws as part of an effort to boost the Greens in five down-ballot races, including for senator and governor. 

And in Western Pennsylvania, petitioners from Florida and California were brought in to gather signatures for Mr. Hawkins by an outside firm whose actions Mr. Hawkins and the party said they could not account for. Mr. Hawkins also did not make the ballot there. 

Supporters of the president have also been trying to advance the candidacy of Kanye West, the billionaire hip-hop artist, confident that he can cut into Mr. Biden’s vote total. Democrats have portrayed the effort as a “dirty trick” and exploitative of Mr. West, who has bipolar disorder.”

It is good to see the GOP finally showing some concern for the environment. Their support, legal or not, for the Green Party is encouraging. 

A part of the environment

Speaking of the environment, the NYT writes separately:

“America is now under siege by climate change in ways that scientists have warned about for years. But there is a second part to their admonition: Decades of growing crisis are already locked into the global ecosystem and cannot be reversed.

This means the kinds of cascading disasters occurring today — drought in the West fueling historic wildfires that send smoke all the way to the East Coast, or parades of tropical storms lining up across the Atlantic to march destructively toward North America — are no longer features of some dystopian future. They are the here and now, worsening for the next generation and perhaps longer, depending on humanity’s willingness to take action. 

‘I’ve been labeled an alarmist,’ said Peter Kalmus, a climate scientist in Los Angeles, where he and millions of others have inhaled dangerously high levels of smoke for weeks. ‘And I think it’s a lot harder for people to say that I’m being alarmist now.’”

I’m not dead yet!

That poor lost soul Dr. Kalmus. There, there, doctor, here’s a nice cup of hot tea. We heated the water up by putting it outside in the sun for a couple of minutes.

Obviously, climate science deniers and crackpots will still call him, and anyone who warns about climate change, an alarmist or something(s) worse. That would be the case even if all the ice melts, sea level rises 220 feet and the gulf coast migrates to about 20 miles south of Philadelphia. We need to alert the border patrol about this possible intrusion to insure that the Gulf of Mexico migrates into Pennsylvania legally. Its papers need to be in order. Darned illegal oceans sneaking around the coasts.

On the bright side, one climate scientist was quite hopeful. The NYT quoted Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University as saying: “It’s as if we’ve been smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for decades [and the world is now feeling the effects]. But we’re not dead yet.”

I’m happeeee!!

ANTI MASKERS MOUNTAIN LIONS AND TODDLERS