GOP mindset

   Fast forwarding in review, and I recall so much a lighter recollection to much in politics.  Thus far a surreal moment coming that a Trump impeachment has reached an obvious level...notwithstanding apparently also blowing up previous FBI investigations into matters of Russian collusion.  Equally there seems also nothing surprising by this, as has been suggested so many times, Trump has appeared equally at times vacillating between fear and loathing recourse and seemingly enjoying prospects.  Only a recent local NPR broadcast from local political leaders illustrates the vast disconnect between the GOP and democrats...minding this were a debate between house leaders.  There is nothing surprising by the entrenchment, but it is precisely the arguments offered estranged from the hyper reality provided.  The moderator points to Twitter as a culprit, and in a way it only seems easy to respond in the way of entrenchment.  For the GOP, it is merely a 'we don't really care and appreciate not having been asked.'  This response is about  supposed economic good.  That it is a president in such times enjoys little mobility in the way of opinion polls points to this lacking mindfulness.  Certainly this couldn't be more the argument to a stately if not highly restrained arguments made by democrat?  Local moderation seemed off if it weren't obsequious to another reality given.  Never mind, the present and hoopla given.  The disruption of impeachment inquiries and so much provocation leading up to the closed door sessions.   Flagrant violations of laws, and self admittance of an administrations that one could describe as a chaotic revolving door.  I recently examined Trump's widely and less biased opinion polls seeing similar data in the writing.  Assuredly there was a small decline in his approval rating but nothing significant by the loss.  Trump's stalwarts appear to staunchly oppose much that deserves in this time era little comparison to the past.  I would be left scratching my head, yes, the outspoken representative house leaders of the GOP sanitize their thinking in all of this.  Does it really matter what if the country appears to be on the right economic track?  All the more disturbing so much lacking statement.  Was this political debate wrapped entirely around Trump's twitter behavior alone?   The crown jewel of lacking political civility is born of this self contrived reality?  

The iconoclastic narrative of Trump as told by Trump

   Trump recently when visiting Kansas City and speaking in front of the VFW (note: it is expected that Trump may actually deny as he does in the near maximal sense of offering denials), offered to his audience, "Don't trust what you hear!'  That is in reference to Trump, that anything said can not be trusted.  That strange moment, certainly reminds of the authoritarian persecution mania strain running in Trump, but it is also one that is self iconoclastic since after all aside from faith or lack thereof, Trump would concede that such statement offers that little truth of accomplishment or failure is owing to Trump, though he'd also state (easily surmising), I never made such statement.  Its contradiction is almost what I coin for the political behaviors of a leader as 'maximalist populism'  or in simpler terms, 'Be all for everyone, and let them invent your self narrative.'   Though Trump is re pleat with double negatives, and certainly that anything possibly said involves a negation in many cases.  There is, however, this perverse nature of Trump when having stated 'there is not believable reality' and only faith, beyond entrenchments or simply in having hoped to maintain an exploitation between polar extremes.  There is no argument.  There is no saying otherwise.  There is only faith, and faith in a human leader that apparently contrives a narrative of the non reality of reality.  Think about this, however, it is an investment of belief in the infallibility of a human leader, however, that Trump simultaneously argues and argues against (in the likely scenario of refutation), and here he attempt to escape the culpability of his own self leadership.  There is and isn't the good economy that is the simultaneously the apocalypse of gone defunct economy, all things that Trump would likely say that he never said.  Its hard to understand this type of political logic, as to where it ends, excepting that ardent supporters could be sensed only having filled in this narrative as they have pleased.  It isn't that Trump ever bashed, after all, NBC, the same media that served to create the icon of Trump that Trump himself demolishes.  Maybe this is incorrect in saying, however, in that Trump manages the stasis of his own image.  Beyond the faith in the talking statue of Trump that said, didn't say, is nothing.  Trump only hopes, as with human imagination, that his ardent followers are creating their own image of him in absence to much thought given about the 'non reality of now'.  However this chaotic politics continues remains to be seen.  Press secretary Sanders invents as much as Sessions as much as Pompeo the Trump that is seen, and in many respects none are really observing him

Some crypto currency thoughts

https://nyti.ms/2NYYSdw

Cryptocurrency’s proof of work system generates coin through mining with cryptographic math problems that have known solutions.  It probably helps to understand the proof of work concept.  Crypto currency like bitcoin use a decentralized version of Hashcashing.  In this case, the proof of work hashing requires all the work and subsequently has time estimations integrated into the solution process.  Knowing the solution doesn’t really help here in advance since proof of work sets expectations of work hashing via sender and receiver communications (all the bad guesses are expected).    If fraud were to occur it would be likely in a time compressed manner and requiring access to all decentralized server nodes receiving fraudulent or time misreported  work.  In other words the server nodes would need be hacked. Servers compromised on this order probably poses no more if not less risk relative to traditional banking industries in terms of vulnerability I would imagine..  If any vulnerabilities existed in a significant and endemic way it would likely show with respect to coin scarcity and devaluation. I imagine there are indirect measures for fraud on this point.  Most crypto currency security-vulnerabilities exist because of poorly administered user accounts through exchange systems but not thru any inherent weakness of the coins production design.  It is designed to discourage fraud and more likely has pushed most fraud exploitation in banking to other areas relative traditional banking.  Proof of work is designed to control scarcity of the coin, and while scarcity and fraud may be thought interchangeable, I think it is a bit misapplied stating that the coin's cost has been held arbitrarily high for the sake of warding off fraud and for verification.  Speculative value of the coin comes thru classic market transactions and neither relate to the inherent structure of the coin's production value.  Verification of the bitcoin is actually relatively inexpensive and is an integrated ledger in the bitcoin (hashed) and verified through the p2p node servers ledger systems (my apologies if I am incorrect).  Certainly higher demand for the coin (scarcity) translates into potentially more miners that could come online to produce more coin hoping for higher returns, but considering that the average miner returns are quite low for even a basic setup (daily a couple of dollars for many), incentives to inflate the coin's supply and demand are always tempered relative to one another.   How the insurance of the "real deal" of the coin play's into its intrinsic market demand I think is personally nominal.  The bitcoin's production and security (verification) are not synonymous.

Humorously to Lynch...

Twin speaks..

Intelligent way?   The intelligent way is the Duke Nuke'em?  :)

You should get back to your forsaken cowboy...

Theories to Alien Civilizations

Type II, III and above.  The problem with interstellar travel and energy requirements are not really a problem for gravitational constraints.  Remember these civilizations can harness the power of individual stars (type II) and many stars (type III).  Generally speaking higher order civilization types are likely to have access to abundant energy and likely the technology that deals with also energy requirements as related to 'super earths'.  Type I civilizations no doubt deal with gravity but really some of the bigger problems to 'space program' is their thicker atmospheres.  One this translate to much frictional energy that represent constraints to travel, secondly biology often deals with constraints to the amount of accelerated force that would be dealt with.  For Earth's type I civilization traditional chemical rockets have served purpose for graduating energy payload expense, dealing with atmospheric friction, and secondly dealing with the problem of accelerated forces that would certainly harm flights containing biology.  The downside to chemical rockets is that its pretty rudimentary (combustion) related stuff to get stuff flying...couldn't there be better ways to lift payloads up into space, or has been quipped in the movie Interstellar, there really isn't so much of a type I solution to evacuate an entire planet (for its biology) for the amount of chemical combustion (energy requirements) up into orbit, save petri dishes and genomes. 

   One theory...
    Transporting biology across interstellar space is a wasteful for energy and spatial requirements.  It seems cool but really, its a waste for type I civilizations.  As to orbital lift solutions, maybe there is some physics solution (discovered) in the future that simultaneously handles high friction burns with shock waves and cavitation more adequately than exists now and simultaneously deals with acceleration/deceleration problems (then one shot energy burst lift assists could be a possibility), but otherwise, conventional means are a likely given today and well into the future as it relates to biology and transport.  The same applies in where atmospheres are more rarefied, except mostly its the accelerated forces problem...maybe the use of cryogenics to some advantage can ramp up accelerated motion for biological flight problems, but this is approaching a type II civilization's solution?  So Type I civilizations and other types may not really bother so much with living biology for interstellar travel.  It seems far less cool, but hey, its the reality of Earth's type I civilization.  Cheaper to send machines and control these.
 
   Theory Two...alien civilizations exist and are quite active here...we aren't looking for them in the right places.  They aren't so interested in convincing the world with a massively idiotic mother ship hovering in the sky that creates massive panic about the world and mobilizes any to think that aliens are allergic to water and bad show tunes.
They could be embedded in a much larger microbial population (quite small) and integrated with respect to any attributes that would make for genetic dissimilarity.  In other words, they don't look like alien biology at all relative to our own.  They may be assimilation oriented as well, assimilating the features of their own genetics with that Earth life making for ease in transitioning to Earth's biology without being invasive or destructive.   Adding to this theory, why is intelligent life always restricted to corporeal biology?  Or given to likely type I constraints?  If you could be an intelligence that were nearly without mass, it seems travel becomes easier, doesn't it?

   Theory three...when radio telescopes are used to look for intelligent life, really type I civilizations are going to be found more likely...given that type II, and above aren't as interested in type I technology or communicating via this way.  Are there faster than light means, for instance?  Really my type I existence 150,000 years ago, isn't so meaningful to you now if I am long since gone!  And secondly, we had to wait 300,000 years just to say 'Hi'?    Local communication is better up to a few decades, but really going beyond this, seems to get more cumbersome in the exchanges.  Other than relaying the message 'Hi' (and given the energy requirements for transmitters), greater utility for radio based communications probably warrants justifications.  At times type I civs politic the notion of radio telescope probing the universe on the basis of 'we're likely alone if we see no evidence to suggest otherwise', and the ramifications for type I civs even desiring to spend the monies either transmitting or looking for transmissions diminishes. 

   Theory four...civilization types tend to be interested in one another more likely when there is type parity...thus type II bonds well with type II, type I with type I, and so forth...
type IV studies type III but isn't so much interested with a lot of interaction...'Hey look we are type IV would you at type I like to be type IV?'    When a cargo cult is made of beings?  I mean the ethics of this sort of thing gets studied right?   Aliens of different type orders seem more omnipotent and all powerful and well...hmm...maybe its just as well to go incognito and call it a day!   They could be interested, they may not be interested.  If they've been here chances are they've been elsewhere, and anyways, as in the scale of time in the cosmos, what are several thousands years of recorded history?  The Fermi paradox fails as a longitudinal argument...existentially here and now, yes, a possible issue...but we see starlight from millions of years ago coming to Earth and if ever any civilization existed there, its probably not there anymore.
The paradox in reality provides for complex answers while the mistaken assumption is the  simple reasoning of obvious presence.  For instance, you think, the answer could mean more likely, 'Why is the alien friend not living down the street and waiving at you as you come to greet?' If it Is an assumed bias that intelligent civilizations seek to inhabit (by greater populations) more places and potentially consume more resources part of the argument 'why aren't they here by now'? If the goal of higher order civilization type is neither obvious presence which infers the condition of colonization and consumption of resources, then it could be inferred that such civilization isn't obeying either by principle of population scale, settlement/colonization, and consumption of resources.  Even if colonization is also a logical prospect what is an easier means to colonization?  Is it transformation of a given environment or integration and assimilation of existing biology into an environment.  We know that CRISPR gene editing allows for the insertion of genetic code, so if it is possible with a type I civilization, how to identify 'alien' DNA versus Earth DNA?   The other part of the colonization answer, is that it may not be so simple to transfer components of a biome into another real estate without transferring more completely many different parts of that biome.   Transferring an 'alien' biome may require unique climate conditions and all other parameters that need be met.  This is organisms from the microscopically small to larger organisms that work in such environment to make any particular component sustainable.  It seems another likely ethical and legal conundrum (likely present in many such type I and above civilizations) is what responsibility is born existentially in eradicating indigenous planetary life.  As it turns out, many of such civilizations will likely have complex legal systems and likely a basis of ethics presiding with respect to interactions.  Can you imagine a chaotic and lawless group of aliens in mass being organized well enough to produce the technology to travel interstellar space...as in the case of number of monkeys that randomly manage to reproduce the works of Shakespeare?  Well maybe it is very very very remotely possible, but for the vast majority of intelligent civilizations this is true?
   The 'why are they not here' may also means that even if existential proof is given the validity of evidence by continual contact.  Surely the voyage across the Atlantic is by far shorter, and abundantly trade is globalized on our planet, relative to the scale influence of civilizations past, but even 12,000 light years across is but a fractional distance of our own galaxy.  That distance by the way describes the limiting time frame for luminal velocities.  That distance also describes much of recorded history on our planet (not pre history or natural history but recorded history).  Thus, in such a distance of travel, one could imagine enormous changes having happened in a type I civilization and what about trade and contact clearly?  For a relative modest scale distance of travel.  The people of 12,000 years ago may share some physical and emotional similarities but the cultures could be quite distinct!  And who would future aliens come to meet relative to a visitation 12,000 years ago if they had such meeting?  My argument then is this:  the concept of continual contact and trade for type I civilizations over extremely modest and short scale distances becomes economically cumbersome and faces any number of difficulties.  Of course, even for aliens traveling when relativity is quite noticeable for near luminal velocities, the journey is one into the future.  It is in knowing that the information of ancestors will likely be history upon arriving at any destination.  That is, almost universally the truth for most stars likely hosting intelligent civilizations throughout our galaxy.  Then what are the economics and what is the sociology of continual visitation and contact to look like?  Many wars fought, the rise and fall of any number of civilizations happened in such time frame.  If that impression of us, a first civilization so long ago reached in ever the faintest of reflecting photons from our planet to such receiving host alien world and that such could be extrapolated from the darkest of images to much greater luminosity, the light of today would reveal how much has changed.  The 'why are they not here' is also in keeping to the likelihood that most travel is sub luminal and near luminal at best, but almost unlikely superluminal.  While we hold out hope that wormholes could miraculously transport us from one world to another, the likelihood of travel by this means is enormously expensive if it were possible.  Thus even for the observable universe, the concept of scale cannot be fully realized until interstellar missions have set about conveying the problems related to communication and contact for most.  The question 'why are they not here' is not so easily satisfied.   A handful of settlers don't land on a planet to survive with existing indigenous biology neither likely providing adequate real estate, and even where hosting biology shares enough genetic similarity, look to history.  All the perils of science in such question is contained in the 'we are doomed by what we only know', and how do ancestors record the incidental meeting of one alien group (a mere handful of such individuals) in history, and how is such history to survive?  How is the evidence of their existence ever to survive?  There have been lone voyages by Irish monks alleged to have sailed all the way to Iceland in sojourn for a hermit like existence.  Likely a place that afforded solitude as much as the alleged travels of another Irish monk supposedly even as far reaching to the America, but in some ways maybe this history is almost recalled in the way that mythology is regarded.  There is probably little to any evidence ever to be found of a lone monk that ever would have reached a place like New York long before European colonist ever settled. Without scale and numbers, unless aliens were using machines in fabricating ever so much grafitti with a sense in conveying a permanence of their existence in some incontrovertible way, it seems like the fate of human voyagers in the past, there are some relegated to the now unwritten chapters of history.  That is to say, that there is also a probability that such contact and communication simply vanished into narrow time window of civilizations past if any receiving civilization was there to record it even.  If a tree fell in the forest but no one was there to hear it, did the tree fall?  Certainly it did, but not to the broad consensus of the scientific community.
    As an analogy consider the symbolic language used at Yucca mountain.  I think this perfectly illustrates the problem of scale of communication over time.  For instance, scientist reasoned, likely rightly, that America as we know it may not exist in the next tens of thousands of years, and with this, there could be a possibility that our own language hadn't existed, and so to communicate with future inhabitants the dangers of the Yucca mountain site, they instead relied upon using universal like symbols that would convey danger of the site, or likely be interpreted as a warning.  While this isn't to say that aliens might not be doing the same thing somewhere else in some nearly eternally ruined (or just a long long time to go back before its safe) spot in the cosmos, but it is to convey the difficulties of communication over the scale of time..  Just whose language would people of the star system 12,000 light years away would such intelligent speak?  Consider the possibility that alien visitors came to Earth in prehistory, the problem of contact and communication follows more along the lines how to discern visitors of millions of years ago, or whether if a civilization existed millions of years ago, the Silurian hypothesis forms some idea of figuring out a civilizations existence.  Even for 12,000 years of communication return and response (more like 24,000 years cycle), two intelligent civilizations are mindful in communicating with some key (as in the movie 'Contact') making use of logic and natural structures (constants) in the universe, for instance, that would form the basis of such language.  Given the likely mutability otherwise of existing language over any span of time.  Who will exactly manning the transmitter on the next cycle of communication?

   Theory five....the scale distance relationship of the America's to Europe is vastly different from the scale relationship of Earth to Mars, Mars to Alpha Centauri, Alpha Centauri, and so forth.  While technological increase in type I civilizations potentially increases the rate of travel, there are (beyond the theoretical) fundamental limits to the speed of travel, and these aren't likely fundamental limits that can be broken.  While holding out hope in cosmological oddities like wormholes, travel in the cosmos in an intergalactic sense is beyond being a turtle, its much slower if it is at the speed of light...maybe from the perspective of travelers this is fine given relativity, but its generally a one way ticket into the future.  Type I civilizations are really doomed when it comes to deep exploration (beyond the one way ticket).  Sure one can look in one's own backyard but mostly for type I civilizations, the civilizations are luck to have vessels designed to house people for hundred's of light years.  For technological growth on Earth, when would you estimate a first interstellar journey?  Scale distances (as indicated above) relate another problem which is that signal communication obeys inverse square laws in terms of signal amplitude...the farther things are away changes the necessary requirements for sending a signal that isn't lost in the chaotic background of cosmic noise.  Certainly stars could send signals but look how massive these structures are!  Communicating between Earth and Alpha Centauri   mentions the transmitter's aperture requirements for our nearest star neighbor...and that is several light years away.  As scale distance increases so to the size of transmitter and cost with it, so even if a type I civilization couldn't afford literally sending something there, even communicating could be costly with all the risk of sending signals to a place that hosted no intelligent life.

   Theory six...type II and higher civilizations progressively get rarer in terms of existence.  Even if each type I civilization has managed to survive its nuclear childhood and adolescence.  Is it likely social evolutionary destiny that such civilization aims to harness the power of its own stellar neighborhood, and subsequently the evolution of higher civilization types is to maintain abundant population growth with power and resource control on galactic scales?  Type II and higher may not be as interested in growing population and inhabiting more space and subsequently consuming more resources (energy or otherwise).  Biological drives and existential purposes could be distinct relative to those found on Earth.  If exploration is driven by population pressures (type I civilizations), imperatives even on Earth for different groups of peoples based upon geography have  been shown true, which relates to desire for exploration, communication and technological adoption.  It maybe that some higher type order civilizations aren't so interested in spending time and resources to exploring the cosmos even given all the factors that hadn't prevented such civilization from doing so.  The same could be true for communication.  Thus a rarer civilization type also holds the possibility that social evolution makes even rarer the possibility for exploration and communication in general.  Thus the one's that are able to are less likely to do the communicating or traveling leaving those that are (type I s) less likely to do so beyond a quite local basis ( 100ly < ).  Extending to this idea, higher order civilizations aren't as myopic as type I civilizations and thus consider things well beyond the scope of a few years or decades for planning exploration and communicating.

Theory seven...Earth is known and avoided (for some reason).  It implies something about our civilization type indeed, but it could be possible that we have offended or are considered uniquely hostile relative other intelligent civilization types found in our local galactic neighborhood.  Consider all the wars, genocide and destructive capacity that we've exhibited up till now...higher civilization types probably didn't get to be where they are at by continuing to waste resources and energy warring with one another, or possibly blowing themselves up to smithereens with nuclear weapons.   Higher order civilization types may have little to do with war, are far kinder to their own, and generally dislike much of Earth in terms of social climate, and thus Earth is left communicating more likely in a universe of isolation. 

Theory eight... skepticism requires much proof.  Is a monolith found buried in some location on Earth sufficient evidence for alien intelligence?  We urge others to practice 'leave no trace' in consideration to ecology, yet the graffiti of travelers passing through tell us irrevocably about those that have been.  Time relates another problem, even rocks can erode in time (millions of years).  Artifacts can buried under sedimentary layers of Earth.  Even for the scale of time on the order of millennia, or far less, old settlements may be found in time.  However, given much the evidence pointing where no evidence exists for travelers having passed through millions of years ago.  How would an otherwise anomalous artifact (say object composed of iron) but found millions of years before any human civilization be treated without the lack of collective evidence even it were sufficiently dated?  Would it be treated by the scientific community as purely 'anomalous' or likely fake? Of course, being 'iron' doesn't fit the extraordinary claim that it is also the product of an 'alien civilization', does it?  Inherent biases would likely have that any such artifact or 'evidence' of any alien civilization requires something that is a technology that we couldn't reproduce and likely gaining acceptance requires scale of evidence.  The whole point in stating this is that 'we only know what we know' is an inherent assumption also biasing the study of the observable universe.
We don't absolutely know what happened on this planet back hundreds of millions of years ago.  We have many theories and evidence about the natural history of our planet what has likely happened, and that collective ignorance of conservative judgement puts much greater limiting factor on probabilities of life elsewhere.  As to discerning history of dating artifacts beyond recorded history, that is another matter because we have biased against this consideration.  A few decades ago, a similar skepticism would range about the possibility of exo planets beyond our solar system, yet the thinking was that our solar system was uniquely privileged in harboring the necessary ingredients for forming an harboring planets?  What is remarkable about the vast cosmic web of the universe is that much of it looks homogeneous even if galaxies themselves bear distinctions in terms of stars and the elements that they are likely to have greater abundances or lesser amounts.  That there is little distinction for the sun relative to other points in our galaxy, or own galaxy in the cosmic web plays to some central notion that if the conditions are neither so exceptional here, why not elsewhere?  And if in time (the longitudinal argument) makes that the formation of life is far less exceptional given the conditions and ingredients than we believed (in laboratory and simulation testing), why should life be exceptional on Earth?  Earth was not exceptionally the center of the universe, or the solar system...nor the sun similarly.  So why not life? And why not intelligent life?

Other reasons you can think of?
The whole point of this is to say the universe is also so large in scale for intelligent life not to exist, but this will likely become more true once examples of exo biology are found.  This will happen in the next ten years.

What are own thinking reveals to us, is that for the 15,000 years past having seen the birth and death of civilizations over is a very minuscule window in the picture of cosmic time, and that even our own anthropocentric biases have repeatedly been undone.

White House Adolescence

    Trump is a juvenile of a president.  I say this only because characteristically Trump seems to be interested in pushing buttons more than he serves any issues or in serving them follows some haphazard mantra of his own that were far worse than George W's "I looked him in the eye"...judgement of people.  That is, where supposedly that soul to soul bromance is born from looks alone.  This juvenile immaturity appears in someone like Dennis Rodman in his "Big bang in Pyongyang" sounding much like his basketball buddy Jong-un...defending that friend as a rebellious teenager might do in a moment of self righteousness before walking out of a house of the respecting.  It is only often times when the inset ugly behavior of such nasty friendship that some greater wisdom is bestowed to the teenager not having listened to loving parents or well meaning friends.  Obviously Rodman would see precisely what the North Koreans have so aptly controlled in providing much of any view of their own country.  As to ugly friendships...it is more likely that anything is ever so much heard from those that disappear and anyways, a rare glimpse beyond propaganda city reveals more modestly (if not stark) something beyond the glass high rises of Pyongyang.
    Trump is certainly international but international in Europe would mean in places like Scotland (not without controversy and having been blocked on real estate deals) and likewise Ireland.  Outside of these places in Europe, Trump is no where to be found, and so to much of the rest of the world, similarly one would likely find a place in the Philippines, Turkey, and India.  It is worth reminding, however, these aren't stellar places either for human rights records Considering that Dueterte (Phillipines) and his anti drug death squads have likely involved the killings of any number of innocents, or Erdogan in Turkey having basically made greater enemies of Kurdish peoples regionally (Turkish distinction apparently lost with the growth of Isil). and then having locked up journalists at record international levels.  Even so (where business could provide some illustration), Trump's attentions in Russia are apparently another matter only complicating matters in and around Iraq, but that is given the Russian/Iranian connection to be found in and around Syria and given all security arrangements in combating Isil that has left Syria for a country decimated in combating either insurgency or terrorists alike.   The whole point, however, in describing Trump's internationalism is more likely in the description of business man that doesn't really deal with much of the other part of the world (the rest of Europe), or much of Asia really, and this provides better description as to why Trump isn't either so much of an internationalist.  This problem is that Trump is precisely an outsider to much else in the world because he has likely been restricted, regulated, or shunned away from real estate development outside of the US , and so his business 'relationships' aren't so much strongly 'first world' in so far as economy and politics, but found in other places in the world that are emerging markets are places that Trump has more familiarity and likely one should imagine having greater familiarity with that brand of politics.  A greater share apparently for Trump's business dealings is also domestic in fairness, and likely a geo political far cry from places that have much room for improvement in so far as democratic values and human rights records.  Though we are to wonder if ever a culture exists at the pinnacle of some business establishments, is it so far off from the ideological wanderings of Trump?  If extra legal spying culture in corporate America were yet another problem, it is all the facility provided up to now in having made popular the figure head of Trump.  Corporate dictatorships that work in less than egalitarian ways are the public media spectacles for once popular shows like the Apprentice.  That is to say that all is not ending with Trump alone and Trump weren't created in a vacuum (see https://theestablishment.co/nbc-helped-create-trump-now-it-owes-the-american-public-ecc2d7f4f30d?gi=50935d4474e3)
    Furthermore once public and private spheres of government have only blurred more so.  Amazon faces accusations of providing facial recognition technologies to law enforcement.  Google only recently changed in stance in providing DARPA military based machine learning services.  Google's Youtube has recently faced accusations of suppressing LGBTQ video sites by either demonetizing or down ranking videos.  In the recent past, major companies have pulled advertising when referencing ads were linked to right wing extremist sites.  A few corporations have pulled their advertising as associated to Fox New's Laura Ingrahams recent comments, but, perhaps, for all the outward support that shown by larger corporations and business, it is a more complex picture.  Trump most certainly isn't completely the problem here.   More deeply, however, in all of this, the externalized autocracy of American power has been symptomatic of more deeply ingrained military/industrial political culture that has shown shades of Trump and worse having avoided the clear optics of controversy.   If at times that picture has emerged in the past (post WWII thru the 1950s) leading to civil rights movement, an attempted Goldwater surge having only failed to accomplish what Reagan did, and Trump what Reagan did not.  That is, there is also nothing new in such politics all the same, other than representing a new body politic more politically divergent in time.  What has changed seemingly is that such politics have been in many respects glaringly stupid.

   It isn't merely the juvenile nature of scraped together talks in Singapore between North Korea and the US, but a myriad of Trump's populism gone awry from banning Muslims,  having recklessly taken to provoking trade wars with his own self interest in mind, the alleged war room rumors of 'Why aren't we using are nuclear weapons?' posed to military generals, the 'pussy grabbing', the prostitutes, grizzly bears for trophy hunters, assaults on our national parks and monuments, never mind the EPA.  Trump has rotated more personnel in the WH, has more vacancies relative any past president.  Trump's chief of staff John Kelly allegedly calls Trump repeatedly an 'idiot' behind closed doors and is so demoralized that he regards his day work as gym workout time.  .Former secretary of state, Rex Tillerson was fired as opposed to following the tradition of most other secretaries of state that would usually have served through an appointed term..and anyways what sort of president goes about really selecting 'qualified' individuals only to be 'fired' and this usually being par for the course relative to other past presidents?  Trump allegedly spends the better part of his day apparently tweeting and not really doing much else, save attending no more than a couple of meetings usually.  Massive civilian casualties and damage of Hurricane Maria and Trump's reception seem to reflect that Trump might have felt a sense of jealousy of the hurricane's aftermath.  The president is less likely seen doing things for people, if he has stated that rehabilitation during the opioid crises could be dealt with by 'executing drug dealers'.  Trump's charity and handling crises isn't ironically building or providing reconstruction benefits in times of disaster within American territorial jurisdiction, which one might have thought Trump may have been more skillful at logistically speaking, but in manufacturing his own social apathy in the wake hurricane Maria's destruction of Puerto Rico, or the sort of response one might have expected in the past by popular evangelicals in describing natural catastrophes as 'deserved punishments'.  The doublespeak of mainland culture is omnipresent in all of this.  How can one speak of American diplomacy under Trump?  'America first' policy has meant a humanitarian shift to others outside the exclusion zone set in Trump's mind.  Puerto Rico is right up there with the illegals from central America and Mexico, reflecting a distinction of white male protestant culture that Trump considers American, and secondly what ever happened to Trump's properties in Puerto Rico?   Truly the litany of lying claims made by Trump are too hard to follow anymore.  Democratic leaders have generally stopped responding much of anything Trump has said, and for all this, the US presidency reflects something that hasn't been seen in a long time.  US American leadership is bad.  Though Trump has achieved something extraordinary that hasn't been seen for a long time.  The might of the American 'king' is perceptively waning.  The omens for future presidents could be for the signs now happening in state's that have worked legislatively to reduce the power of governors, could this be the start of diminishing the power the executive branch?  Political checks and balances come when it seems there are necessities born by examples...protecting America from childish and adolescent power could be another coming of age.    

Cruelty

    Cruelty comes from within the home

    Cruelty comes from the industries that promote it

    Cruelty comes from all who accept it in silence

    Cruelty is cloaked in words to alter its description in attempts to make it pervasive

    Cruelty could be interchanged with other words similarly in describing much