Recent reader comments

  • Reply to: Sunday News: From the Editorial pages   4 hours 56 min ago

    ...and etymology and such."

    "Normal" and "normalization"come to mind frighteningly often these days.

  • Reply to: Sunday News: From the Editorial pages   5 hours 5 min ago

    Dude gets under my skin...

  • Reply to: Sunday News: From the Editorial pages   5 hours 11 min ago

    This week's losers are the readers in Greensboro, who are once again exposed to the Neanderthal views of Charles F**king Davenport, Jr:

    A few weeks ago, President Trump offended the refined sensibilities of “journalists” by expressing a desire to abolish birthright citizenship. As if that were insufficiently outrageous —and inadequate evidence that he is a racist and a fascist — days later, he openly declared himself a “nationalist.”

    One could almost hear the collective gasp of shock and disbelief from members of the national press.

    But President Trump owes no apologies. In fact, he should double-down on his remarks.

    What this idiot doesn't get, as evidenced by his double-poke at journalists, is that (as usual) they were merely the purveyors of that information. It was the rest of us who gasped in shock. Birthright citizenship is even more precious than citizenship by marriage, or have you forgotten the massive conspiracy theorist movement against Barack Obama (which Trump took part in, by the way), challenging his place of birth?

    As far as citizenship by marriage, we don't have to worry about Trump trying to dissolve that. Two of his three wives were not U.S. citizens when he married them (both mothers of his children), and the first (Ivana) actually married to get *out* of Chekoslovakia, dumping said Austrian husband in Canada a few years later.

    But let's get back to the nationalism debate:

    To those interested in understanding perspectives other than their own (a stipulation that rules out the likes of CNN’s Jim Acosta), definitions can be helpful.

    But let’s put “nationalism” on the back burner and consider the root of the word: “Nation” is not an uncommon term; we use it frequently. But what, exactly, is it?

    According to Webster’s, a nation is “a stable community of people with a territory, history, culture, and language in common.” Fine.

    What, then, is meant by the term, “nationalism”? “Devotion to one’s nation, its interests, etc.; patriotism or chauvinism.” It is also “the advocacy of national independence.” So, a “nationalist” could be defined as a patriot who attempts to advance the interests of his nation.

    I am all for exploring root words and etymology and such. But in this case, it's not appropriate. Trump isn't about "nuance," all that clumsy fuckwit cares about is "spectacle."

    When he declares himself a Nationalist, it has the worst of connotations associated with it. It has ethnic (Caucasian) undertones, and a combative stance in relation to all other countries. It also carries the context of current events, because this President doesn't live in the past or the future, he lives in the minute. He sees things happening in the world, and makes an instant judgment call. Whether he needs to or not (in most cases it's not).

    He sees the White Supremacist movements, the often vicious anti-immigrant fervor, the false religious scare-mongering, and he admires that. So he calls himself a Nationalist, because he knows he has supporters like this painfully unqualified navel-gazing wannabe "columnist":

    There’s nothing alarming about that. In fact, shouldn’t every American president should be a nationalist? It ought to be a prerequisite to the job. If a candidate for the highest office in the land declines to embrace the term, he should be disqualified.

    But “journalists” and many Europeans disagree.

    Of course those Europeans disagree. They have been militarily invaded numerous times by "Nationalist" leaders, who of course are never satisfied with remaining within their own borders once they've achieved total dominance of their own people. Europeans have earned (in blood) the right to be outspoken when Nationalism rears its ugly head, and we would do well to listen to them.

  • Reply to: Wisdom for the Weekend   1 day 5 hours ago

    When I was attending Campbell University's campus on Fort Bragg in 1986, my Sociology (I think) professor asked us to make predictions for the future. One of my predictions was that Nelson Mandela would eventually be President of South Africa, and several of my fellow classmates laughed about that.

    When my professor asked what I based that on, I said something along the lines of, "Apartheid is one of the last vestiges of European Colonial rule in Africa, and when it falls, South Africa already has its next leader, even if he is sitting in a jail cell."

  • Reply to: Too big to regulate: Facebook's manipulation of Congressional review   2 days 2 hours ago