[FRIAM] And so it begins: the dark times
Jochen Fromm
jofr at cas-group.net
Sat Jan 21 17:41:40 EST 2017
On CNN I saw mainly women. There was also an interview with senator Cory Brooker from New Jersey who promised to fight against any attempts "to grab" the constitution.
What you say about turning back the clock is exactly what worries me. Napoleon, Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler and Mao, they all tried to turn back the clock and hoped to make their country great again. In the end they produced millions of dead people.
As we all know know coal mines will not reopen, nor will old-fashioned factories magically become productive again. We have the same problems in Europe, and the coal industry is dying here too. The manufacturing jobs went to China and India long ago. We couldn't afford to buy the things if they were produced here.
I fear the only way out of this crisis is forward, together, not backwards. And it is encouraging to see so many people protesting peacefully. I hope this was not the last protest march. But will Donald listen? Doubtful.
-J.
-------- Original message --------From: Pamela McCorduck <pamela at well.com> Date: 1/22/17 01:22 (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And so it begins: the dark times
Make no mistake, Jochen, there were many men marching in the crowds.
The angry white men are generally older, high school graduates or less, though not necessarily in poverty, who see the world around them changing, and imagine that Trump can turn back the clock: coal mines will reopen, old-time factories, too, and they needn’t even think about watching their mouths around women or minorities.
But also, plenty of women voted for Trump. The New York Times interviewed some of them. Their answers were appalling: “You’ve got to look behind the words and find what’s in his heart.” Or, “I’m looking for the good in him.” As if he were a juvenile delinquent eligible for foster care, not a candidate for president.
We talked in this group about Type 1 thinking (slow, analytical) and Type 2 (impulsive, spontaneous). Voters for Trump have admired him because “he says what he thinks,” whereas Clinton was measured and thoughtful, which these people took to be “phony.”
It’s certainly a civil war between the Type 1 and the Type 2 thinkers.
On Jan 21, 2017, at 2:52 PM, Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
I have watched the large demonstrations of the women's march today on CNN, it is pretty impressive. Finally some protests, why did it take so long? It looks like there is still some hope.
It feels a bit like an American Civil War, not between south and north, between Confederate and United States, but between angry white males represented by Donald Trump and peaceful women represented by Hillary Clinton.
In Europe we had at least two traumatic periods of war: the 30 years war from 1618-1648 between catholic and protestant states, and the 30 years from the beginning of WW I in 1914/15 until the end of WW II 1945 between various forms of *-isms (fascism in Italy and nazism in Germany vs communism in Russia and capitalism in the rest of the world). Every time Germany was in ruins afterwards.
If America should slide into authoritarianism like Turkey and all the *-stan countries such as Turkmenistan or Kazakhstan it will not end well.
-J
-------- Original message --------From: Steven A Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> Date: 1/21/17 21:53 (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] And so it begins: the dark times
Jochen, et al -I have to say I accept or agree with the idea of a sitting
President (or any high official) having close access to their most
trusted advisors, whether they are family or friends. It is only
natural IMO and in principle will allow them to do a better job.
I understand the anti-nepotism rules to avoid there being any
"profiting" which is moot among the uber-wealthy such as Trump and
Kushner. I understand restricting cabinet and other "conserved"
positions such as the one Bobby Kennedy held from 60-6-4 as
Attorney General. We deserve a broader base of perspective than
that of a "dynasty"...
All that said, Kushner (or Ivanka or ???) in the White House is
disturbing for the conflict of interest reasons. If Trump
pretends he (and he alone, because HE is so mighty and great)
could run both Trump Inc. and Trump USA at the same time, he is
admitting to an intended conflict of interest (or complete
unawareness of the basic meaning of the term?). If he claims
handing his day-to-day in Trump Inc off to Ivanka and Kushner and
??? waives the conflict of interest, he is mistaken, and by
installing Kushner IN the White-House makes that conflict explicit
again. Nothing I would not expect from him.
- Steve
On 1/21/17 9:23 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
Actually Jochen, this one is squarely on the
Clintons. When Bill appointed Hillary to a White House task
force back in the early 1990s, this went through the court
system. The judges in that case ruled that the law applied to
Cabinet appointments and paid positions within the larger
government, but not to White House staff. Kushner will similarly
be in a unpaid position.
“We doubt that Congress intended to include the White House or
the Executive Office of the President” D.C. Circuit Judge
Laurence Silberman wrote in the 1993 decision, “So, for example, a President
would be barred from appointing his brother as Attorney General,
but perhaps not as a White House special assistant.”
-----------
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Supervisory Survey Statistician
U.S. Marine Corps
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Jochen
Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net>
wrote:
First it was not clear what *-ism mix it will be -
authoritarianism, nepotism, cronyism, nationalism or a
mixture of it. Sarah Kendzior and Paul Krugman predict
we will end up in an authoritarian dictatorship. What do
you think, which *-ism will it be?
Maybe you could say the new minority president
teaches nationalism, practices nepotism and cronyism and
leads inevitably to authoritarianism. Will he be allowed
to break the law? Isn't hiring of Jared Kushner already
illegal?
The law clearly says: "A public official may not
appoint, employ, promote [..] in or to a civilian
position in the agency in which he is serving or over
which he exercises jurisdiction or control any
individual who is a relative of the public official."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110
-J.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170121/f2b3bcd0/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list