Thoughts......

I once read something about what will lead to the fall of democracies, including I'd guess, the United States.  It's not the armies of opponents that would cause the demise/destruction, but the self-centered interests of the wealthy and/or the arrogance of the political and professional classes.  These groups will form an aristocracy, anointing themselves of course, and use their combination of riches and influence, their arrogant elitism to prevent the political institutions (namely, the Constitution) from protecting and insuring the freedom of the masses.

These groups might well come in different forms; I don't know.  But a cursory, at least, glance at the past few decades seem to bear out a view such as above.  Note, for instance, the government bail-outs of several years ago.  Oh, there was an excuse, a rationale, "Too Big To Fail."  I say HOGWASH!  If they deserved to fail through there own greed, their own ineptitude then let them go.

Check out now, too.  Could we find a better example of the arrogant political class than Hillary Clinton?  For that matter, who could be looking out for the interests of the wealthy better than Don Trump?  That these two might well be the choices come November makes me sick, almost physically so.

I can't begin to see myself voting for either one.  I'd like someone to point out one redeeming quality possessed by Clinton.  I've not heard one yet.  And her politics, her views, if honestly promulgated, are all wrong.  Trump?  I fully understand, as I've written, his appeal.  It's not about him.  How can it be?  Here's a guy who has gone bankrupt three or four times, can't get a gambling license from the state of Nevada, has left others holding the bag in bad business "deals" more than once...and consider this thing called "Trump University."  No, I am no longer going to "hold my nose" and vote for the lesser of two pieces of crap.  Lesser crap is still crap.

In response to a comment, Trump name-calls, actually lies.  He is never held accountable for that.  He never provides any facts to support his name-calling/lies.  He just gets away with it.  No, I'm not going to resort to the Nazis in Germany ("He who refers to Hitler first, loses!"), but guess what tactic they used?  Perhaps I am just hyper-sensitive to name-calling, esp specious name-calling, where the accuser never supports anything, can't support anything, just spreads the half-truths and deceptions.

And I don't know what station or stations these supposed political experts represent, but I heard at least two of them yesterday pontificating on the Belgian Islamofascist bombings.  Well, I think that's the core of their comments.  But all I heard them talking about were the dangers of the American "right wingers" to the Muslim communities in the US.  Granted, I may have come into the conversation a bit late and missed some things, but the couple of minutes I heard made no mention of the terrorist dangers--none.

I guess I don't understand the Establishment's fear of the, say, Tea Partiers.  OK, I do--it's a question of the Establishment being far more concerned with retaining its own exalted position of power (see a few paragraphs above) than with representing the people or doing what's best for the US.  But, what I don't comprehend is how easily dismissed the terrorist threat is and how emphatic that the real dangers lie with the Tea Partiers.  I know people who regurgitate this.

I wonder if those folks can tell me how many Tea Partiers have been suicide bombers, lop off the heads of people different from them, send their own children into crowded areas wearing bomb vests, blow up airports and restaurants and night clubs and.......  Maybe it's the arrogance of the professional classes (see a few paragraphs above), that they are so very superior to the rest of us.

I just found out some students at Oxford U in Britain are demanding that Oriel College remove a statue of Cecil B. Rhodes.  Apparently they are upset that he was a colonialist (A pejorative term if there ever was one, don't you think?) who made much of his fortune off the backs of unfortunates.  I certainly won't argue that point.  After all, I think it was Rhodes who once stated, "I would annex the planets if I could."  What I will argue is the stance of these students.  I can't take them very seriously.  After all, didn't these recipients of Rhodes Scholarships know what kind of man Rhodes was when they accepted the scholarships?  If he was so rotten, why in the world would these students want to be associated with him and his tainted money?  Now, I might sympathize just a little bit if each and every one of these Rhodes Scholarship students rejects the scholarship now and return all of the tainted money they received.  If they don't do that, then tell them to shut up and examine their own selves.