Presidential Debate No. 2
This one was different from the previous one, in style and presentation, particularly at the outset as conversation about the personal affairs or sexual life of Mr. Trump was initiated by cable network anchor Anderson Cooper, who put the question as one might expect of a criminal hearing.
⍟ Sexuality, Morality, and the Separation of Church and State: Mr. Trump attempted to redirect the dialog to his competency at dealing with so-called radical Islamist group “I.S.I.S.” He waited for the questions about his sexual etiquette and courting practices to be repeatedly begged by the moderator panel, before his eventual remarks about Ms. Clinton’s husband, the former U.S. President William J. Clinton who was impeached by the U.S. Congress during his presidency for allowing himself to be fellated by a White House intern in the Oval Office.
Long minutes went by before this dialog came to an end. By the way, such oral gratification among consenting adults behind closed doors isn’t illegal generally; and neither is fooling around or talking dirty. Also, people from all walks of life and orientations like the oral option. Of course there was, at the time of President Clinton’s impeachment, discussion about the president’s morality as it relates to a contract of marriage, and official ethics pursuant to executive function and high office. There were other accusations, charges, and settlements regarding other women with whom Mr. Clinton was said to have been romantically involved, about which I am no expert, but based on hindsight I think it probably had to do with an escort service for which the subject of the impeachment was only the tip of an iceberg. Mr. Trump mentioned these matters only after the panel continued to press the question about his sexual activities, purported preferences, and historical decisions. Mr. Trump remarked that his actions, while they aren’t something of which he is proud, were nevertheless limited to speech, where Mr. Clinton’s involved physical contact.
Many, many people talk dirty about and during the physical act (it’s a reaction to a hyper-moralization of sexuality, that has been used by churches and other governments throughout time to control people; so I suppose it is fitting that this conversation occurs at this highly visible level during the vetting for positions of high office in the United States). So, such “civil disobedience” in the bedroom is often in response to the long history of moralists telling people and their ancestors that, upon penalty of death or excommunication, they can’t say such things. But all restraint is physical, even if it is a restriction of speech. Is Mr. Trump kinky? A dom? Who cares, as long as it’s consensual and safe. Was Ms. Clinton’s husband, the former President Clinton, extremely or uncontrollably libidinous while he was in office? Perhaps, but the implications may seem negligible in the broader context of evaluating the competency of C-level executives or national leadership. The stronger implications for such a libidinous disposition would seem to have more relevance among the social institutions which it evidently transgresses. Did he cuckold his wife on the national and international stage? Yes. Can cuckolds be dangerous and unpredictable? Yes. Does cuckoldry typically involve well-organized social complicity therefore denote socio-political implications? Yes. Is it a major security problem for sex workers to have regular access to “high ranking officials”? Oh yes. And there is a well-established historical discourse that identifies such solicitation as part of the complicated web of events which led to Jack and Robert Kennedy’s overall security failure. There are plenty of aces who are aces because of the serious security implications of romance.
Perhaps never has there been a more abused institution than marriage, and in modern times it presents a mixed bag, to be sure. Marriage is supposed to be a private contract that’s unencroachable by public opinion or government. This is because kink is as old as the hills, and moral legislation is obtuse and frequently unconstitutional. Someone may have private amorous practices which you don’t like, but it’s unconstitutional for you to intervene privately, and it’s also unconstitutional for you to organize and intervene publicly. If what they’re doing is deadly, then the proof should be in the pudding and that should be good enough for you. Advertising is a special case of course, but what goes on in the privacy of someone’s own home isn’t your business. In fact, public displays of heterosexual affection is a natural psychological trauma trigger for those who’ve suffered abuse and institutional biases of homophobia, for example. So the sword cuts both ways and it’s a matter of conditioning, not innate truth. This is why it’s often safer to stay in the closet, and why deviant sexuality is one of the main, if not the main thing which the institution of marriage seems to effectively protect.
For example, death row prisoners, who’ve been stripped by a state apparatus of nearly every natural right and liberty, may still marry. In my view, state endorsement of a marriage, which seems to be the norm, isn’t necessary and is a conflation of church and state. By right of natural law, no state should be able to dictate who loves whom, but of course people privately define marriage differently. Certain organizations still use the patriarchal or matriarchal lines, intergenerationally espoused via marriage, for the transfer of wealth, positions of community leadership, and institutional grudges. Some people define marriage as nothing beyond lovemaking, where coupling is simply coupling. Some people espouse themselves to a cause, or career, or a philosophy, and in doing so they forego romantic love or lovers. And, some people use marriage as a tool to either barricade themselves into a preferred social status while locking others out of that gene pool, or in defining other closed social groups e.g. multipartner communities). Others use marriage, and their preferred definition of it, as a way to raise their status or increase their access to capital.
While there may be fewer knitting circles in the world these days, there are still just as many witches, and women behaving like bonobos, and men behaving like dogs. Much of it is arguably quite ugly indeed, and I think that’s why people espouse an organization, or an enlightening or philosophically rewarding career instead of some savior in the form of an individual mate. Because the latter scenario is, more or less, a lie. The picture perfect marriage between a man and a woman, in my view, with rare temporary exceptions, is a fairy tale. So maybe it’s picture perfect, but at what cost and to whom?
So this is a fair time to make a few points about sexuality, sexuality as a vocation, sexuality and religion, religion and government, and the separation of church and state. People are made to love, to be together physically, and the control of access to such intimacy is well known to be one of the most effective mechanisms by which to control individuals or groups. Frankly, such access to intimacy and community has been heavily governed at the social level, throughout humanity, and unfortunately it’s still the case today in modern America. The difference is, we do not have to be so governed, because we are U.S. citizens and our natural liberties are stipulated in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, among other valid reasons. But if we don’t enforce our natural rights to freedom of thought, assembly, and religion, etc., then those rights of way will be transgressed because such is the tendency of bullies and other power-hungry organizations, individually and in groups, as part of the darker face of humanity. And if we cannot enforce our own, then we can’t help anyone else. The natural rights codified by the constitution do exist outside of the constitution, but the constitution does give citizens a proper, expressed, legal right to enforce liberty on behalf of ourselves and others. Doing so is an executive function and it requires a knowledge and understanding of the law.
Again, instead of opening the debate with the very serious issues involving the more than one-hundred years of American imperialism on foreign shores; the troubles of central banking; technology, ecology, domestic infrastructure and the environment; and cohesive progressive foreign policy and international collaboration; the opening question from the moderators’ dais involved Mr. Trump’s sexual world, which segued into former President W.J. Clinton’s. Alas, cogent conversation about social policy is terribly neglected in the United States, where the public schools are largely occupied by religious factions who are bitterly at odds and confused, so the dialog is welcome, albeit potentially untoward or “unprofessional.” But I suppose it’s never untimely.
The ownership of the institution of marriage in the United States seems to be highly coveted by various loud-voiced groups, and it’s a highly moralized issue. But for these later generations who’ve grown up in increasingly less homophobic communities, in a less institutionally racist post-colonialist world, the “old guard” policy isn’t a viable, open, outright option; However, the unavoidable need for intimacy, love, and inclusion certainly remains. So, people, as the old jazz standard goes: Birds do it. Bees to it. Even overeducated fleas do it. Ms. Clinton’s husband apparently did it with a young intern in the Oval Office, and Mr. Trump apparently did it with whomever, or at least talked about it. In any case, I wasn’t present in either event, nor have I seen any such footage. But I do understand why Mr. Trump refuses to run negative ad campaigns. And the negative campaigning on the part of Ms. Clinton is informative regarding her compartmentalized, propaganda-reliant, warlike management style.
⍟ Judiciary, Electoral Politics, Civil Rights, and Chattel Laws: Further into the body of the debate, came a question regarding President Barack Obama’s pending U.S. Supreme Court nomination. Partisan Senator from Kentucky Mitch McConnell, who is a divorced and re-married Southern Baptist and climate change skeptic who is one of the richest U.S. legislators according to Wikipedia, has said his Senate caucus won’t review the executive nomination of Merrick Garland, chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, nor any other nomination from the current administration. The question is of relevance in the current presidential vetting, because if the refusal to docket the current nomination persists, the next administration would be put upon to nominate someone to fill the vacancy left by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Ms. Clinton indicated she’d pursue a nomination strategy that is adversarial to the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission precedent, and remarked that Mr. Trump would seek nominees who would attempt to erode the high court’s Roe v. Wade precedent. Mr. Trump was quick to remark upon the irony of Ms. Clinton taking a position against special interest groups apropos Citizens United v. FEC, and said he’s made a 20-person list of potential nominees who he said are of a “Scalia-type.” Quickly, again, this is the United States of America which is governed by its citizenry within the confines of the explicitly protected natural rights and liberties of the constituency. It is not a dictatorship, and one’s moral government is one’s own. One may not personally elect to get an abortion, or one may. To do so, is to do so at one’s own peril, or best judgment as the subjective case may be. De facto chattel laws are a constitutional transgression. To tell someone that their womb is your business, or the public’s business, is to declare personal (or public) ownership of that womb and of the person, without consent, which is against the law in the absence of proper due cause and a valid warrant. It may not be pretty by various vantages; but leaving other people alone is the cost of freedom in the United States. It’s my speculation that, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, speech about the Second Amendment is analogous of U.S. Constitutional law in general, in the sense that people either understand self governance and personal liberty, or they do not. Such is the political watermark. Know the law or it will be used against you, and unfortunately such is the case respecting civil rights as well.
My two cents? The next president should nominate Barack Obama to the United States Supreme Court.
At this point, you’re probably feeling like I was, after ten minutes of debate when the conversation was still focused on other people’s private parts. So I’ll move on now, finally, but slowly. I do say, the aforementioned subjects beg critical questions of fundamental civil rights, the apparent confusion about which is at the root of most problems in government. And so since it came up, it won’t go unaddressed on this page. Mind you, through all of the debate’s conversation regarding the dividing lines between public and private life, neither candidate made any such libertarian clarifications as have been made herein, that would have represented the par of fundamental understanding of constitutional law for any applicant to the U.S. chief executive office or any other public office. And by the way, it’s worth teasing out from this conversation, a definition of constitutional law and government by the people: That is, we are a democracy in the sense that we’re not a monarchy nor any other type of dictatorship. The word democracy derives of the Ancient Greek, and it means our individual hearts are legally in charge, and no one leader despotic or otherwise is. And we’re only a representative democracy insofar as our representatives represent our individual political will and do so within the confines of the constitutional law which pipes the whole affair back to the individual political will and the natural rights of all people. Such magic is the only way a grand experiment like the United States of America can both survive and thrive in the twenty-first century. In this sense, constitutional law overlaps with karmic law; that’s part of the meaning of constitutional, in fact. To revert to a ruling class, imperialism, warlike policy, and domestic division, is to go the way of all previously fallen nations; in the long run, nonesuch ethically dubious governments survive.
⍟ Healthcare and the National Economy: So, we’re finally onto a new subject. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, enacted in 2010, was of great political contention, or so the mainstream corporate media would have its conscripts believe. But, one ought to be immediately skeptical because that corporate press is financed by the same scratch as the highly dubious health care insurance cottage industry. (Dante Alighieri probably puts all insurance racketeers into the same lost circle of hell, but for purposes of keeping this essay under ten pages, let’s stick to the healthcare example).
Mr. Trump, honoring the standard two-party infighting scenario, discussed his will to scuttle the Affordable Care Act and replace it with state-level block grants. Granted, I usually go to great lengths to avoid corporate media vectors, but I think that’s the first time I’ve heard someone criticize the ACA and give a cogent-sounding alternative in the same breath. Ms. Clinton’s designs on the economics of national healthcare seem to involve tinkering with the existing ACA.
As in the longwinded previous topic both candidates also failed to field this question, of status quo economic policy for healthcare. But the correct answer goes something like this: The main goal of healthcare, and the main policy constituents are 1) doctors and 2) patients. But all efforts at fixing the system seem to target the insurance industry, i.e. ACA’s additionally capitalizing the healthcare insurance industry. Mind you, fraud in the healthcare cottage industry is the subject of most False Claims Act litigation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Claims_Act). Moreover, FCA litigation has brought, whole hog, the federal judiciary into this healthcare cottage industry where money, not healthcare, is the prevailing force. (FCA litigation is extremely cash intensive, because healthcare insurance is extremely cash intensive, thus it’s a very popular legal specialization. Go figure.)
The principal medical practitioners, and healthy lifestyles in general need to be incentivized at an institutional level; This more direct “loophole” makes for the shorter distance between the main problem and the best solution, rather than further capitalizing (or re-capitalizing) a cottage industry that’s already rife with profiteering (which is a kind of racketeering and is therefore a crime). Paying more money into the bottomless insurance hole funnels capital every which way but into actual healthcare. For all the discussion about the dollar, the candidates seem to forget that it actually represents our good-faith political will (which explains why profiteering is silly and solves nothing). The actual American “commonwealth” is its people (i.e. labor force), its land and resources (like our our art and mountains), and its spirit (such as our freedom and good will) etc.; The dollar is a fiat paper-money currency and is only a facsimile of those actual objects of value. Meanwhile, doctors are scientists; they’re biologists, and they may or may not be good bookkeepers, but forcing their offices to deal so intensively with the insurance bureaucracy creates a terrible burden and conflict of interest for them, and it’s no sort of appropriate incentive for medical practitioners, and is the thing that good doctors hate the most about their job and the part which quacks love the most, and is a strong deterrent for students who are considering medical science as a career track.
It could be said (and especially with most of the American “wealth,” or access to capital, in the hands of so very few) that socializing the healthcare industry is the only best option. It’s what the more economically established, conservative European “democracies” (non-empires) have elected to do, and rightly so in order to increase the quality of service and create and maintain order in their healthcare segments. It could be as easy as this: Since the dollar’s a fiat currency anyway, the people (doing business as the Federal Reserve Bank) should stipend qualified physicians, allowing them broader purview as operators to extricate the “middle man” (insurance companies) as they see fit, on a case-by-case basis without any economic risk. With such competition from the “people,” by way of the dollar, perhaps the actual service which insurance companies are supposed to provide (whatever that is ultimately) would improve in quality and go down in cost. Then maybe people in the health insurance business would be in that line of work because they wanted to help, not because they wanted to get rich. Want to get rich? Be rich in kindness and helpfulness, and go to medical school. Your access to capital will follow from your good faith. Ironically, it seems like the opposite is what’s in effect today, where big whining insurance moguls get all the breaks and bailouts despite their contributing to all sorts of economic woes which regularly beset Americans and our economy. It’s my observation that the only place where insurance companies actually have some sort of functional systemic symbiosis among the patients and the providers are in large corporate environments where the custody of salaried people’s healthcare accounts is escorted from cradle to grave (or from college graduation to retirement) by the corporate contractor; and I say that such cushy, swinging, nine-to-five, career-long golf junkets are hard to come by for most people and are available only to a small and shrinking minority of Americans who aren’t in need of public charity anyway. Public sector insurance pools are often just as culturally or demographically nepotistic but their future is far more imperiled because the public sector is less able to hoard capital.
Showing his hand at legal architecture via the ACA, President Obama has left the lynchpin legal work up to the people in the matter. His tacit constitutional argument? Interesting question, but you can be sure there’s some embedded statement, because he knows the law, and he knows where our nation’s wealth truly exists. And my advice? Go vegan and exercise regularly, for otherwise your flesh will rot, and with it your mind.
⍟ Foreign Policy, War, & Cyber Security: Next subject: “Islamophobia” and how to deal with it at a policy level. In my view, both candidates also struck out on this question. It is my opinion, however, that Ms. Clinton’s position is further off the mark, and here’s why: Mr. Trump talks like a person who is inheriting a war that he doesn’t want. He’s repeatedly said he was against the 2003 invasion of Iraq and ensuing war in the Middle East (which is still under way) which began during President George W. Bush’s administration following the terrorist attacks via hijacked commercial flights on September 11, 2001 in a Pennsylvania field, at the Pentagon, and into the twin towers of New York City’s World Trade Center. Ms. Clinton and her campaign operatives repeatedly dispute Mr. Trump’s statements about his historical positioning therewith. As a member of the U.S. Senate, Ms. Clinton voted to invade Iraq. As did the majority of her colleagues of course. Didn’t someone once say, go not into the house of the whore of Babylon, for it is death’s very home? So get out. It’s our involvement with the imperialist presence in the Middle East that inspired the September 11, 2001 attacks to begin with. Get out so we can normalize relations. We can’t leave, because we’re already there? Incorrect. It’s never too late to do the right thing, and the longer we stay, the worse it gets, until such time that it can’t get any worse if you know what I mean. Can we please leave that crazy prostitute alone, people? She could be the oldest trick in the book, and you’ve been falling for it in its current iteration, since 2003.
My concern is that Ms. Clinton’s policy regarding the war in the Mideast would just end up as maintenance of the status quo colonialist foreign policy. Are we just worried that if we leave, Russia gets to keep it? That’s fine with me. At least Russia’s sort of on the same continent. We’re way out West and supposed to chillout and standby for foreign intervention only in the event that things can’t be handled by local powers. We’re way out of line, still being over there this time after thirteen years, it doesn’t end well, anyone with any foresight whatsoever can see the reality of that. Get out. And we ought to leave it nice and shiny and all fixed up. Don’t want to pay for foreign infrastructure? Then quit bombing it in the first place. Start sending aid and rebuilding. Get out, get out, get out. Get out so we can mind our own house (and shine it up nice, too, if possible, what’s left of it). Q: Wonder why domestic “relations” aren’t so great for the past 15 years or so? A: In its enduring military occupation of the Mideast, your nation is on the wrong side of hers/history. You’ll freeze to death with your axe in a hedgerow before you’ll ever be rewarded for your complicity (or your apathy) in such a boondoggle. And by the way, get out of Washington D.C. and take your imperialist ruling-class agenda with you.
Nevertheless, in response to the question of ongoing war on foreign shores and its blowback, Ms. Clinton, as she did during the first debate with Mr. Trump, immediately served up talking points about “Russian aggression” in the Middle East and the perils of Russian foreign service in the United States as a cybersecurity threat, and alleges a softness on the part of Mr. Trump with respect to Russian President V. Putin that stems from his potential business interests in Russia. Mr. Trump responded that he does not have a material relationship with Mr. Putin nor any business interests in Russia. Mr. Trump noted that the Russian military is fighting the same “enemy” (a manufactured enemy, may I remind you) as is the U.S. in the Mideast. It’s this big bugaboo, she keeps talking Russia, like it’s the only foreign country in the universe. Russia is one of the oldest and most predictable political entities there is. And pound for pound it’s a strong ally. And like I said in the op-ed after the first debate, Russia doesn’t like being scapegoated by incompetent American politicians.
It’s worth noting that Ms. Clinton’s good-cop/bad-cop talking points about Russia are paper thin Cold War propaganda, the very cause of which is prolonging for as long as possible, U.S. complicity in vicarious hot wars for the purpose of common global colonialist agendas which benefit certain historically wealthy ruling classes in the First World of both the Eastern and Western hemispheres, and which have been boldly and unapologetically pulling strings among the leadership in the United States since the run up to World War I. This is just a continuation of that, and Ms. Clinton’s talking points fall right in line with it. For all of Mr. Trump’s alleged bad traits according to the corporate media or Ms. Clinton’s campaign, I’m still far more comfortable with his foreign policy because, unlike Ms. Clinton’s, it is not an explicit lock-step recipe for more land war in Asia. Look, we either fall for the global imperialist propaganda, or we don’t. Believe me, the rest of the enlightened world is watching. Take care of your business competently and expeditiously, and don’t get yourself labeled as a belligerent. It’s why I keep writing long about it now; humanity on earth has the ability to keep the global peace, so let’s show a little class and restraint as a nation and as an international community, and do it up pretty. Marshall law and military protocol are real things, and wars are “prosecuted” yes that’s the appropriate word for it. But no competent prosecution outside civil channels lasts this long and certainly not while making things worse. Mr. Trump remarked that I.S.I.S. is now influential in 32 different countries. The only way to reverse this metastasizing, un-civil foreign policy disaster is to drastically change the policy, which I feel certain that another Clinton administration would not do. Regarding Trump, I can only speculate. This issue is key, but it’s probably too late to have as much influence as we’d prefer because the U.S. military is rather leathery after 13 years of it, and the Obama administration has, more or less, successfully handed much of this incarnation of the Middle East occupation over to Russia.
It’s also worth noting, this nation was built by immigrants, we’re all immigrants, technically even the Native Americans who came on foot via long-submerged land bridges (I don’t mean to belittle or overlook the genocide that occurred on this continent; this constitution covers them too, and such karma is why the Native Americans are so politically powerful where properly organized). Business is business, free trade is a wonderful advocate of world peace. It’s not illegal to be a Russian or a Russophile, notwithstanding the Chechen–Russian conflict, for example, where the same advice (to get out) is philosophically well-minded. There are lots of Russians in America, and lots of Chinese, and lots of Europeans, and lots of Latin Americans, and lots of Africans and lots of everybody. (There are a relatively very few if any Antarcticans, but that will change quickly if the world cannot bridge away from its dependence upon fossil fuels).
These nations—Iraq, Syria, Libya, the North Caucasus republics, etc.—they are strategically and militarily important. Now what does that have to do with the price of tea in Colorado? Very little, my good people. I don’t be-bop through Northern Africa on my way home from my friendly municipal library. But such exotic extra-continental locations are military cinch points—communications routes and resource assets and the like. My advice is, get the colonial boot off the silk road. Buy silk, trade silk, and traffic in silk, but quit burning oil wells like a bunch of idiots and start building solar and wind farms and generally making nice. Under the current circumstances, the quality of life and liberty in America, therefore life in the free world, is poor. War doesn’t just kill people, it kills happiness, and freedom. And the current war is an awful hack job. Regarding cycles in international politics, the “make love not war” call for peace helped finally break the Vietnam occupation. One cannot have both love and war in perpetuity. Stay at arms long enough and it always becomes a legitimate point of domestic policy. It’s a matter of biology. And the Middle East scenario is an occupation, not a proper war. As soon as civil function can return, it should. Anything else is a political occupation, which does things like generate new terrorists, homegrown and foreign. Really I.S.I.S. in San Angelo, Texas? For shame.
Our constitution and Bill of Rights is unequivocally in place, and it speaks for the natural rights of all people of all nations, and that has to be good enough most of the time. We must pick our battles, or speak softly and carry a big stick, and not respond to every cry of wolf we hear, etc., (especially cries of wolf from a warlord-occupied Washington D.C., can you understand how stupid it makes us all look? How stupid it is?) or else we will continue to become more and more ineffective and disrespected as a nation both at home and abroad. We are occupied. By foreign interests. It would be one thing if the foreign interests were friendly, but they aren’t. When one separates oneself from the religious aspect of these battle cries, the argument for going to war is always far less compelling, so don’t buy it, don’t be fooled. Israel and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia can get along fine by themselves, with their nukes, golden terlets, and platinum Mercedes Benzes. They have their gods and don’t need us. The crusades are over for those of us who know better, and have been for a long time. Our military or imperialist presence over there is just increasing the entropy and making things worse here and everywhere else.
During the debate, there was additional discussion about taxes, all of which I do not wish to elaborate upon here, because both candidates fail to make proper assessments regarding distribution of wealth in the United States, focusing on the impact of would-be policy upon such small groups of people, and using tired old aristocratic or standard political or business-as-usual talking points. As I mentioned before (notwithstanding the war problem), discussion pending at the national level right now needs to revolve around the best interests of the citizens, but neither candidate is interested in such an approach; perhaps they would if the debate moderators forced the issue, but that’s not happening either. I tell you, since anyone who is out of order with constitutional law is technically not incumbent, regardless of what the electoral circumstances are, the Libertarian party (or little-l libertarian philosophy) is often the only one with candidates who wouldn’t be technically violating the constitution with their policies or their proposed policies. So take a hard look at your local/state/federal libertarian candidates. Just because some corporate media outlet tells you that a third party vote is a wasted vote, doesn’t make it true. Remember, think, who owns the corporate media? Remember, think, who’s in charge, constitutionally? Criminals? People who don’t understand our basic constitutional law? No, no. Learn the law, and write yourself in as necessary; that’s more legally binding than voting for some dubious character from out of state whom you’ve never met.
⍟ Energy: Finally, regarding domestic energy policy, Mr. Trump spoke from a bottom-dollar standpoint, again, saying “the E.P.A. is killing the energy companies,” and that foreign oil companies are buying our petro facilities and retrofitting them for their own use (does British Petroleum at the Gulf of Mexico’s Macondo field ring a bell, or wasn’t that what he meant?). He also mentioned “clean coal,” which is a greenwashed fallacy hatched by the coal lobby. “We are putting the energy companies to death.” Mr. Trump cites natural gas as a bridge fuel to more renewable energy technologies, such as solar, wind, and geothermal power, and there’s some truth to that. He’s right on some of these energy talking points, and he’s wrong on others. The E.P.A. is heavily embattled by wealthy corporate interests, and military co-intelligence protocols have to be deployed to fend of the infiltration of the agency by in-bad-faith corporate agents. The petroleum-industrial complex is cash intensive and highly profitable. (More profiteering, aha). There’s so much money in it, because it’s easy money, and there’s a captive audience. Therefore it has much political influence, insofar as people and their politicians can be bought, and it and its constituency have strong incentive to retain the status quo, and to drag heels on progressive R&D and implementation of a renewable energy systems. I’ve worked in the energy sector; it contains some of the most cutting-edge integrated systems development, featuring the sort of amazing technological advances in applied interdisciplinary engineering which allows terraforming of the remainder of the solar system and colonization of the Orion Spur. And beyond. Amazing stuff. The same industrial segment, however, also includes some of the most horrible bottom-feeding entities who don’t care about innovation or sustainability and who will sell-out themselves and all of humanity and their home planet (and even more readily, a borrowed planet) and their own futures for a handful of paper dollars today. They hedge on death, their own and everybody else’s (and they do so in symbiotic collusion with the insurance segment, among other combined bad-faith special interests btw). It’s an interesting thing, to see from the inside, to be sure. But new grid buildout can happen much faster than the current snail’s pace, as hobbled by the coal lobby etc. Again, like I said after the first debate, perhaps Mr. Trump is wisely treading lightly about the leviathan that is the special interest of oil and gas (and coal). Ms. Clinton always says the correct two sentences about renewable energy systems, but her policy would be restricted to a compromise among the people she surrounds herself with, pursuant to her management style. And she’s surrounded and financed by special interests including the huge oil and gas lobby. Fact check that.
Meanwhile, China is dumping steel in the United States, and Mr. Trump is buying it to build his buildings, Ms. Clinton said. She fails (as does Mr. Trump) to address the fact that the industrialization of China is an economic creation of the United States (among other colonialists). Such was the New World Order want, up until President Nixon opened American diplomatic relations with China, and such has been the subsequent active agenda. To talk about it any other way is to give lip-service to the Cold War policy which seeks to disenfranchise the people of the United States of America from the dialog about how our nation is interacting (and offending in our name) on the international level. Don’t let these ruling class aristocrats speak for you. It’s our country as much as it’s theirs, in fact it’s ours more so because there are more of us, we know better, and we actually mean well.
Meanwhile, I’ve gone back to school for a second degree, for a mid-career change from journalism to mathematics and computer science. And I have observed that the buildings on campus should be covered in solar panels, but they’re not! This is Arizona, after all, and the sun shines all the year long. So I’m headed off to see if there’s anything I can do about that. Meanwhile, you go make a difference, vote against wars overseas while our own frontline battles are being lost and our schools are struggling; vote against elitist economic policies or worse, economic policies which feed useless or hurtful cottage industries, while injuring and dividing and killing people and giving all of us and the future of humanity on earth a bad trip. Everyone’s civil rights and liberties are the same, and if you don’t stand up for your own, it’s harder for others to exercise theirs.
C.G. Braswell, host of The Odelay Show