President Biden walks into a bank to cash a cheque.
As he approaches the teller he says “Good morning, ma’am. Could you please cash this cheque for me?”
Teller: “It would be my pleasure, sir. Could you please show me your ID?”
Biden: “Truthfully, I did not bring my ID with me as I didn’t think there was any need to. I am Joe Biden, the 46th President of the United States of America!”
Teller: “Yessir, I know who you are, but with all the regulations and monitoring of the banks because of impostors and forgers, etc I must insist on seeing ID”.
Biden: “Just ask anyone here at the bank who I am and they will tell you. Everybody knows who I am”.
Teller: “I am sorry Mr. President but these are the bank rules and I must follow them”.
Biden: “I am urging you please to cash this cheque”.
Teller: “Look Mr. President this is what we can do. One day Tiger Woods came into the bank without ID. To prove he was Tiger Woods he pulled out his putting iron and made a beautiful shot across the bank into a cup. With that shot we knew him to be Tiger Woods and cashed his cheque. Another time, Novak Djokovic came in without ID. He pulled out his tennis racquet and made a fabulous shot and the tennis ball landed in my cup. With that shot we cashed his cheque. So, Mr. President, what can you do to prove that it is you, and only you, as the President of the United States?”
Biden stood there thinking, and thinking and finally says: “Honestly, my mind is a total blank. I can’t think of a single thing”.
Teller: “Will that be large bills or small bills, Mr. President?”
A guy who openly admits he has no solution for a particular problem? And doesn’t pull rank…
Or someone who is convinced ‘his people are so smart’ that he can do anything and ‘not lose any vote‘?
These people no longer communicate. As in no longer care to understand what the other has to say… Mind you, not ‘agree with’, just understand. Just develop a ‘mere’ understanding of what the other feels/thinks/has to say about a subject.
The consequence?
Both sides have become so focused on contradicting each-other on no matter what subject that both of them have lost the ability/exercise to look for the real issue.
The Ukrainians have enough AK-47s. They don’t have any use for any AR-15s. What they need is howitzers. And HIMARSs! As for the 2nd amendment…
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
Given the Ukrainian experience, should we read the 2nd Amendment in such a manner that ordinary people would be able to keep and bear howitzers? Or HIMARSs?
Or should we focus our attention on the notion of ‘a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State’…? Meaning that without a well kept and well trained Army, the State, any state, would soon loose its sovereignty?
After all, the Ukrainians fight, together, against an invader. They cooperate in order to defend their State. Meanwhile, many of those clamoring about the 2nd Amendment are more preoccupied about using their guns to defend their individual freedom against the State than about cooperating with their fellow citizens towards defending the State against any aggression.
Counter-protesters Kenya Stevens, left, of District Heights, Md., Steve Tidwell, of Arlington, Va., and a protester who asked not to be named, shout their support for gun rights across from a protest of gun control advocates next to Realco Gun Shop in District Heights, Md., on Tuesday, Aug. 28, 2007. The protest of gun control advocates was part of the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Sr.’s National Day of Protest. The gun store, located very near the border with Washington, is a large source of guns used in crimes in the nation’s capital, according to District officials. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
In these circumstances, am I allowed to remind you that Putin – the guy who had initiated/ordered the invasion of Ukraine, is a “genius”?!? According to Trump…
Cuvântul cheie este „sataniștii”. ‘Sus’, ‘jos’… nu contează!
Cei care acordă o oarecare atenție spațiului cultural nord-american au sesizat intensitatea cu care, de cel puțin 10 ani, ‘publicul’ este îndemnat să nu mai citească ‘presa’. Care e mincinoasă și vândută.
Noi, boșorogii de peste 60 de ani, ne aducem aminte și de spusele lui Ronald Reagan. Cel în timpul căruia s-a întâmplat să se prăbușească comunismul și cel pe fruntea căruia au fost puși laurii.
Ronald Reagan este considerat a fi fost un mare comunicator. Citind o mare parte din citatele care i-au fost atribuite, găsești foarte multe lucruri interesante. Și observi cât de măiastră a fost pana care le-a cizelat. În asta să stea oare ‘esența comunicării’? În ușurința cu care mesajul este strecurat dincolo de filtrul conștiinței și în adâncimea la care este înfipt în păienjenișul memoriei?
Efectele, și mai ales cele pe termen lung, sunt luate în calcul? Atunci când judecăm ‘comunicarea’?
Este indubitabil că ‘guvernul’ poate fi ‘o problemă’. Poate fi chiar „terifiant”. Astăzi, de exemplu, guvernul Rusiei terifiază, cât se poate de direct, populația Ucrainei. Și, indirect, o lume întreagă.
Pe de altă parte, cam care ar fi fost situația dacă nu ar fi existat și celelalte guverne? Daca guvernul condus de Zelenskii n-ar fi coordonat rezistența și dacă guvernele din UE și SUA nu ar fi coordonat ajutorarea Ucrainei? Conflictul s-ar fi încheiat în câteva zile și noi am fi putut să ne întoarcem la ale noastre?
Și cine l-ar fi oprit pe Putin? De ce să-l oprească cineva pe Putin?!?
Tot în Statele Unite continuă disputa dintre cei care consideră că Trump ar fi fost ajutat în timpul campaniilor electorale de către serviciile secrete aflate în slujba lui Putin și cei care neagă acest lucru, cu vehemență.
Trump a contestat rezultatul alegerilor pe care le-a pierdut. O parte dintre suporterii săi au ocupat, efectiv, Capitoliul în încercarea de a ‘convinge’ Congresul American să invalideze rezultatele scrutinului electoral.
Lucrurile astea s-au întâmplat în sânul celei mai puternice democrații de pe planetă. În sânul singurei forțe militare și economice capabile, și dispuse – pentru că nu are alternativă, să-l țină în frâu pe ‘Putin’. Pe orice dictator căruia i-ar trece prin cap să pună în pericol modul actual în care evoluează civilizația umană.
În situația asta ne mai întrebăm ‘de ce l-ar ajuta Putin pe Trump’?!? De ce ar ajuta un dictator pe cel care era să distrugă singura democrație capabilă să-l țină în frâu? Care democrație a pierdut deja enorm de mult din prestigiul pe care îl acumulase de-a lungul istoriei? Care democrație este, încă, atât de puternică încât poate fi distrusă doar din interior?
Care democrație, ca toate celelalte, este doar atât de puternică pe cât este de eficient guvernul care pune în practică deciziile adoptate în mod democratic de către populație? De către „We, the People”?
Da, spunerea e foarte bine adusă din condei. Interpretarea a fost fără cusur. Publicul, exasperat de excesele unora dintre guvernanți – exasperat de excesele prea multora dintre cei ajunși prea puternici pentru capacitatea lor de discernamant, a fost încântat de cele rostite atunci.
Și efectul?
Nu cumva însuși accesul lui Trump la butoanele puterii a fost o consecință a dezgustului pe care îl au prea mulți dintre Americani cu privire la guvern? Și la politică, în general?
Și cine are de câștigat din toate astea? Din erodarea, pe dinăuntru, a democrației? Din erodarea încrederii oamenilor în capacitatea lor de a genera un act de guvernare transparent și perfectibil prin intermediul feed-backului democratic?
Cine are de câștigat din convingerea alegătorilor că cei aflați ‘la conducere’ sunt „sataniști”?!? Indiferent de cine or fi ei, sloganul a apărut și este multiplicat, ‘pe garduri’, de cel puțin 10 ani…
Și un ultim calup de întrebări. Reagan a fost un actor. Un artist. Dacă citatul chiar îi aparține, este foarte posibil ca frazarea să-i fi venit în mod natural. Dar dacă îi aparține unui ‘specialist în comunicare’? În comunicare strategică? Dacă și citatul cu care am început îi aparține tot unui ‘specialist’?
Nu vă ambalați! ‘Întrebările’ abia urmează.
Ce-o fi în capul specialiștilor ăștia? Chiar nu-și dau seama ce efecte vor avea, pe termen lung, cuvintele pe care le înșiră ei? Sau nu le pasă?
Și, pentru că trebuie să ‘descurc’ toate ‘ițele’ pe care le-am început, voi încheia cu o ‘traducere’. Media este într-adevăr ‘mincinoasă’ și ‘vândută’. În viziunea celor care promovează conceptul bineînțeles…
Urmăriți doar vehiculele media pe care am reușit să le cumpărăm noi. Doar celelalte, adică cele care nu au acceptat să se vândă, să-și pună ‘limba în slujba celui celui care plătește mai mult’, sunt mincinoase. Noi suntem singurii care vă spunem adevărul! Adevărul nostru… ‘alternativ’…
1. Sow doubt. 2. Drop a loud fact. Or two… This will simultaneously ‘water’ the previously planted seed and act as a ‘foot in the door’ for your next move. 3. ‘Miss-interpret’ another fact. 4. Mention an universal human emotion, inviting your audience to identify itself with the ‘victim’. 5. Squarely state what you want your audience to believe.
1. ‘The Soviet Union didn’t crumple under its own weight. It was dissolved by Yeltsin so that Gorbachev’s position would disappear. Leaving Yeltsin as the top dog of the day. Even if at the helm of a little smaller empire…’
2. ‘After the Cold War had ended, the West should have treated the ‘defeated’ as Germany, Italy and Japan had been treated after WWII. The West should have helped the Soviet Union to overcome the transition hurdles by extending to it an equivalent of the Marshall Plan. Instead of that, the Americans had come up with the Wolfowitz – later Bush, Doctrine.’
3. ‘Gorbatchev was told by James Baker that NATO will not move an inch eastward’
4. “…1998, Yeltsin, late Yeltsin: ‘you promised not to do this! So, how do we trust you, if you make a promise?’ “
5.1. Vladimir Putin has been created by the United States. 5.2. The so called free media in general – and New York Times in particular, cannot be trusted to provide honest information.
Pozner’s discourse is far more ‘byzantine’ than the ‘stream-lined’ version I used to illustrate what skillful propaganda looks like. Skillful maskirovka, more likely?
This post has become long enough. Let me wrap it up.
The main question here being ‘did he actually say it? Did Baker actually promised Gorbachev that “NATO will not move an inch eastward” ‘?
The Soviet Union is long gone, all the states which have been admitted into NATO are ‘in’ because they had asked themselves to join – and are now extremely glad to be protected by the famous 5th article – … while the only (frustrated) ‘agent’ who ever cried foul was Putin. Not only cried foul but eventualy acted out his frustrations!
I say this makes absolutely no sense. It’s not only insulting for the nay-sayers, it’s actually dangerous for ourselves.
For all of us. Vaccinated, unvaccinated and unvaccinables.
Let me explain. The US Army, and all other successful ones, live by ‘no one left behind’. Far more than its technological prowess, this constitutes its main strength. Each of the individuals involved feel that they belong there. That no matter what will happen in the battle field, none of them will be ‘left behind’. It is this collective sentiment which transforms a motley collection of ‘misfits’ into the most powerful army in the world. The fact that the ‘home team’ foots the bill for the most technologically advanced ‘tools of war’ only adds to that strength. That huge bill being itself a proof of the powerful bond which exists between those who ‘serve’ and the general population. ‘No one left behind’ once again.
Flash back to the nay-sayers.
I’m convinced they’re completely mistaken. That Covid is for real, that vaccines work – even if imperfectly, that the mask is useful – and that calling it ‘face diaper’ is insulting. And I’m also convinced that we should rather hear them out than call them ‘unhinged’.
For two reasons. The first, and most obvious, being that calling them names opens up the door for them calling us names. How soon after a session of name-calling do you think we’ll regain ‘mutual recognition’? How soon after a session of name calling will we able to regain our ability to ‘speak freely’? And to listen in earnest what the others have to say? The second, and the more important one, being that it’s hugely important for us, for all of us, to understand the reasons which fuel this ‘nay-saying’. What made the nay-saying propaganda so successful.
isn’t going to bridge the growing gap which yawns our society apart.
The fact that Trump – and his minions, have been instrumental in the digging of the gap is one thing. His ‘thing’. In which direction each of us pushes – what each of us does about the present situation, is quite another thing. Our ‘thing’, this time.
As much as I love writing, I do have to eat. And to provide for my family. Earning money takes time. If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button. Your contribution will be appreciated! Another very efficient way to help would be to share my posts.
As much as I love writing, I do have to eat. And to provide for my family. Earning money takes time. If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button. Your contribution will be appreciated!
As much as I love writing, I do have to eat. And to provide for my family. Earning money takes time. If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button. Your contribution will be appreciated!
I still have to find, only I’ve lost patience, an explanation for what had ‘fed’ Trump. Trump as social phenomenon…
For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered but the jobs left and the factories closed.
Trump has made himself famous. Among others, for imparting new meaning to the concept of ‘fake-news’. And for using “alternative facts” to introduce us to an ‘alternative reality’. His…
Only his reality did have something in common with that faced by many of his fellow Americans.
Oops! Suddenly, Trump’s ‘alternative’ reality – part of it, at least, has become one with that experienced by “we, the People”. By a majority of them, anyway.
What made so many people – dispirited, undoubtedly, believe that a self professed pussy grabber and proud member of the Washington establishment would solve their real-life problems… by ‘draining’ the very ‘swamp’ in which he had grown to his present stature … that’s something for other people to explain.
My point being that Trump’s behavior had very closely followed that of Goethe’s Apprentice Sorcerer. He had used his uncanny knack of playing hide-and-seek with reality to climb into the Oval Office only to be fired after one mandate. To be the first American President who had survived two impeachments. And the second one who had witnessed – more or less unmoved, the untimely demise of half a million Americans due to disease
But the first who had done that during a mostly peaceful mandate. Pandemic, true enough, but otherwise peaceful.
NB. The ‘Spanish Flu’ pandemic, which had happened during Woodrow Wilson’s mandate, had caused the death of 675 000 Americans. Only that had occurred just after a world war, when viruses hadn’t yet been discovered and man hadn’t yet walked on the Moon.
What will happen next?
Who knows… Goethe’s poem had a relatively happy ending because a master sorcerer was at hand. Who had solved the problem with a swift gesture of his powerful wand.
No such easy solution is available now. But one thing has become clear. Again…
Two things, actually. Too many dispirited people eventually become a powerful – and highly unstable, ‘Petri dish’. Where all kinds of ‘social experiments’ might ‘spontaneously’ explode. And playing with people’s passions might take you places. But will, almost always, end up badly.
“The popularity of authors like Deutsch, Sandbrook and Foote – men of very different calibre in many different ways, but all wordsmiths who form history into desirably unchallenging packages for certain kinds of audience – is undeniable. It points to a conclusion that the wider historical profession, from schoolteachers to internationally renowned critical scholars, struggles to overcome. People, and specially people from priviledged groups, do not want historians to tell them bad things about their tresured identities. They will, indeed, forcefully react against such challenges, when given the political rallying-calls that allow them to do so. In that sense, it must be said, they do not want history. They want what they are increasingly getting: a cosy blanket of half remembering and convenient forgetting that is cushioning their slide down the slope to full-blown cultural dementia.”
As for the fact finding mission… I wonder! Given the amount of loyalty extended to Trump by Kevin McCarthy, how many years might pass before the facts will be ‘found’?
5?!? And who would be fingered for ‘starting the whole thing’?
nicichiarasa 