Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • (This post has been corrected.)

      For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction.

      This is true in the physical realm but in human interactions, we can choose to have a Brandt Jean response to what others have done to us.

      Borzou Daragahi has published an opinion piece has to what should be done in the event that Trump is defeated and he is advocating the opposite of a Brandt Jean approach to the aftermath of the Trump presidency.

      In conflict management one seeks to avoid escalating a conflict. But Daragahi's suggestions would not reduce the tensions which exist in the American political economy, they would instead intensify the tension.

      I do not know the answer to the degree of discord which exists politically in America. There are very few who will heed the words that will heal the rifts in human relationships.

      Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate
      you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

      Daragahi's opinion piece is linked below:

    • For readers unfamiliar with some of these terms (including me), I thought it might be useful to provide definitions.

      Newton’s cradle

      <><><>

      “Will a Newton's Cradle ever completely stop? Short answer: In practice, Yes — when all initial potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy (and in the process, has completely dissipated away as thermodynamic entropy).” (Source)

      <><><>

    • Okay, sorry for the delay in reading the article. I think I take a much more cynical view of politician’s willingness to enact safeguards like these that would diminish their power as well.

      Wish lists include tightening campaign-finance rules, giving teeth to oversight rules that Trump has flouted, ... and tightening laws requiring candidates to disclose their financial records.

      In addition, the charitable tax-exempt status of the think tanks, foundations and religious institutions peddling Trump’s line and abetting his rise should be carefully reviewed.

      George W. Bush benefited from many of these weaknesses in oversight and unchecked influence by interest groups. The Religious Right played a significant part in Bush’s election and re-election so is it realistic to think there would be bipartisan support for restricting religious institutions’ influence on politics?

      Curious as to your views as far as what reforms are realistic under a Biden administration. Tagging @mbravo as well for his input: perhaps preventing another Trump warrants my voting for Biden? Maybe.

    • Stephen,

      I am not overly interested in policies and reform as I am in the attitudes and character of the people.

      I view all policies and reforms as analogous to snow forts and sand castles.

      As Paul wrote: "And if I bestow all my goods to feed and if I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it benefits me nothing."

    • I think...I’m becoming resigned to never being able to understand. I’ve had people here on Cake helpfully link to articles that try to help understand Trump supporters and their fanatical, unwavering support, but I’ve never been able to feel I get it.

      When angry men storm the Michigan capital with AR15s over their shoulders, I simply go blank.

      I hate to let myself slip into this mode of thinking, but I feel some people are born awful and never change. Don’t we all have close personal experiences with people like that?

    • When angry men storm the Michigan capital with AR15s over their shoulders, I simply go blank. 

      I hate to let myself slip into this mode of thinking, but I feel some people are born awful and never change. Don’t we all have close personal experiences with people like that?

      I can be as cynical as the next person, but I don’t view these people as inherently evil.

      Are their actions harmful, disgraceful, stupid, deadly, insane and scary to watch?

      Depends on your sources of information: garbage in, garbage out.

      Look at the Australian Wildfires, and how many people believed the conspiracy theory that arsonists had caused it, not Climate Change.

      We have a 24/7 disinformation network, regardless of whether they call themselves “news”. When hydrochlorothiazide was shown to have serious negative reactions from COVID-19 patients, did Fox spend days letting people know this important detail after they had spent weeks blasting it as Trump’s cure-all-drug?

      When you are among the 40% of Americans who don’t have $400 for an emergency, you don’t have idle cash to invest in a subscription to reputable publications like The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, etc.

      So the only news you get is from your friends or family sharing on Facebook, Russian bots tweeting disinformation, or Fox.

      If that was my news sources, and I was struggling to pay rent when I have nothing saved, I would probably be protesting or storming the state capital.

    • Chris,

      Part of my efforts in my main work pertains to trying to perceive things from the perspective of those whom I am convinced are wrong. Because of this, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt and often discover that how things look on the surface is NOT what is really going on.

      Stephen Covey wrote about this in the original seven habits book and I think he also wrote about this in Spiritual Roots of Human Relations but it has been around twenty years since I read that book.

      Jesus also spoke about this when He said "Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

      What exactly did those men who entered the Michigan State House do with the guns they carried and why were they carrying them?

      I wasn't there and I have not watched any videos but I'm going to guess that although they probably did as much shouting as most demonstrators due (including anti-gun demonstrators) that they never used those guns in a violent manner. Maybe they did but since I have not read a report suggesting that they did. Furthermore, I've read that Michigan allows firearms inside its State House.

      Why did they have firearms if they did not use them? Probably because those who carried them were thinking that they were engaged in a legal demonstration of their constitutional rights.

      Now, I am not a gun owner and I am not involved in any of the second amendment political movements, but I am willing to view this conduct from as objective a position as possible.

      There is a difference between saying that they entered the State House and saying that they "stormed" the State House. Why do you say they stormed? When people on the left yell and scream during a demonstrattion do you call them "angry"?

      Again, I wasn't present and I've not talked to these people but there is a difference between saying "Opponents of Michigan's stay at home policy entered the state house, yelling and chanting, and some of them were carrying firearms" and saying "angry men storm the Michigan capital".

      One of those statements is neutral, the other biased.