Happy New Year Dan, and thank you for your insightful reflections.
Building on your « this too shall pass » comment, the following Buddhist fable has always comforted me in times of doubt or uncertainty, as well as joy and serenity. Enjoy, and again, Happy New Year.
- Dan Duguay, Ottawa Canada
There once was an old Zen farmer. Every day, the farmer used his horse to help work his fields and keep his farm healthy.
But one day, the horse ran away. All the villagers came by and said, “We're so sorry to hear this. This is such bad luck.”
But the farmer responded, “Bad luck. Good luck. Who knows?”
The villagers were confused, but decided to ignore him. A few weeks went by and then one afternoon, while the farmer was working outside, he looked up and saw his horse running toward him. But the horse was not alone. The horse was returning to him with a whole herd of horses. So now the farmer had 10 horses to help work his fields.
All the villagers came by to congratulate the farmer and said, “Wow! This is such good luck!”
But the farmer responded, “Good luck. Bad luck. Who knows?
A few weeks later, the farmer's son came over to visit and help his father work on the farm. While trying to tame one of the horses, the farmer’s son fell and broke his leg.
The villagers came by to commiserate and said, “How awful. This is such bad luck.”
Just as he did the first time, the farmer responded, “Bad luck. Good luck. Who knows?”
A month later, the farmer’s son was still recovering. He wasn’t able to walk or do any manual labor to help his father around the farm.
A regiment of the army came marching through town conscripting every able-bodied young man to join them. When the regiment came to the farmer’s house and saw the young boy's broken leg, they marched past and left him where he lay.
Of course, all the villagers came by and said, “Amazing! This is such good luck. You're so fortunate.”
I know this one. Brilliant. An intuited sense of chaos theory applied to daily life: Everything is consequential, which may be terrifying, but we cannot know what the consequences are, which may be calming.
"Released early last year, the latest iteration of that annual report contained a grim sentence: “Global freedom declined for the 18th consecutive year.” "
And who has been in power for 12 of those 18 years? Obama for 8, and "Biden" for 4. So, yeah - I know! - let's blame Trump. This is comedy gold, Dan.
I didn't blame Trump for an 18-year-long global trend, Grant. Because that would be bizarre. Almost as bizarre as this criticism.
Also, FTR, I think a major mistake people make -- both Americans and foreigners -- is grossly exaggerating the extent to which American presidents control events around the world. It would be silly to simply look at profound, long-term trends like these, say "post hoc ergo propter hoc," and praise or blame whichever president(s) were in office.
You blamed Bush for engaging in the wrong kind of "march for freedom," and you indicated at great length that Trump's "impulses and inclinations" in this respect are even worse than Bush's were. So maybe I got it wrong to infer that you were blaming Trump for being on the wrong side of the march for freedom. It's hard to tell where you are going with your inchoate historical lessons, sometimes. A thesis statement at the start, and a concluding summary paragraph, might assist you in keeping your thoughts on track.
I agree with your "FTR," though. I was going to point that, too, because that also wasn't clear from your presentations today.
"...in a few weeks the office once held by George W. Bush will come under the control of a man who attempted to subvert an election and who repeatedly promised to turn the executive branch into an instrument of personal vengeance."
That's inadvertently hilarious, Dan. The Presidency had come under the control of - I won't say demented Biden, but rather - mysterious forces that *actually succeeded* in undermining the 2020 election, and have repeatedly turned the executive branch into an instrument of personal revenge. *Everything* the benighted left attributes to Trump is merely a projection of their own dark, deep-state machinations.
No fewer than 51 former national security folks pretended that the Hunter Biden laptop was "Russian disinformation" prior to the 2020 election. We now know from the twitter files - thanks mainly to Taibbi and Schellenberger - that that was a concocted, a prefabricated lie of the first order and consequence. Dan, know a bunch of "facts," but you never seem to learn anything from history.
The January 6th "insurrection" was orchestrated by the FBI, who had dozens, by some estimates hundreds, of agents provocateur inside and outside the Capitol. Trump's advance attempts to bring in the national guard to deal with the anticipated crowds that day was rejected by the Democrats in charge - Pelosi and the Mayor of DC. They *wanted* an "insurrection." You have to be willfully blind not to see this by now.
We also know that the massive campaign of lawfare that has been conducted against Trump ever since the 2016 Russia collusion hoax has been an abject farce by his political opponents. Every last impeachment and legal case brought by Congress and the DoJ has been a confected conspiracy with zero basis in fact or law. (I'm not only a retired political philosopher, I'm also a retired lawyer. And although I never practiced law in the USA, I know how to read cases. The appalling level of legal abuse directed at Trump would have crippled a lesser man.)
What? You don't think Taibbi & Schellenberger are reliable sources? You don't believe the evidence that has been presented in court in the J6th trials (and elsewhere besides)? You actually believe that a stale-dated book-keeping decision can be jimmied into 34 felony counts?... No, you're not "playing along" because you are massively ignorant of everything related to Trump, because you prefer your delusions.
As a resident of the U.S. who has recently discovered you on Substack I find your writing to be totally clear (contrary to some of the comments here). What’s more I think you make very cogent observations about Trump and the U.S.
The U.S. has a tradition of anti-intellectualism that goes back to the mid-1800’s. We have had demagogues in the past; Huey Long and Joe McCarthy immediately come to mind. Trump is the first to become President. I think your prescription to raise the price of oil has the potential to affect Trump’s popularity quickly. Americans have a shockingly short attention span. The price of eggs bothered Trump voters more than how he handled the COVID pandemic. If we had to pay similar prices for gasoline as Canadians do Trump would have a big problem; if he complains Canada caused this it makes him look weak to his supporters.
From your article speaking of Trump (who I have no love for) "who repeatedly promised to turn the executive branch into an instrument of personal vengeance."
Do you mean exactly like the Clintons and the House and Senate did against Trump? I enjoy balanced arguments for and against all sides in politics but this is anything but balanced.
"Other people did bad stuff" isn't a rebuttal to the statement, "he said he'd do bad stuff." It isn't even relevant. And "other people did bad stuff 30 years ago" is even less of a rebuttal. And even less relevant.
As to the House and Senate, reasonable people can disagree about the propriety of the impeachments, but it's more than strange to say that the exercise of a lawful power of those bodies of the legislative branch of government is "exactly like" promising to turn a completely different branch of government "into an instrument of personal vengeance."
Dan here is trying to write Trump's horoscope: "You will fail by being isolationist and allowing dictators to win their wars, unless you fail by being a warmonger and invading peaceful neighbors." It doesn't matter which specific countries might end up being on either side of these "predictions," because if Trump is "isolationist" in other theatres of war or "warmongering" in different peaceful regions not currently being mentioned, the answer will be, "Well, I was only concerned with Trump's impulses and inclinations, not the specifics of history. And I was, after all, right about Trump's impulses and inclinations! He WAS a warmongering isolationist!" Horoscopes are inevitably correct, because inconsistent things are predicted.
Tell is what you really think, Dan: is Trump an isolationist or a bully, a warmonger? He can't be both. I'm looking for a falsifiable prediction; otherwise, it is just more blather. ("Trump will inevitably do exactly the wrong thing!" isn't a falsifiable prediction. It's a pretty reliable forecast for any politician, no matter who is making it.)
As for falsifiable predictions, I noted over and over again in the pieces linked above, and elsewhere, that Trump will bully and threaten other countries, particularly smaller, weaker friends and allies. Since he won the election, he has done exactly that to Canada, Mexico, Panama, and Denmark. That's quite a list for someone who hasn't even taken office yet. QED, as they say.
Trump has made some typically Trumpian hyperbolic statements about Panama and Denmark which cannot be excused. (Unlike you, I can see good and bad in politicians; I don't have to see them in black-and-white terms.) We'll see if they amount to anything more than blather or teasing.
But Trump is not wrong to be peeved with America's neighbors, Canada and Mexico - nor with American allies in Europe. We have not been particularly good neighbors, or allies. QED?? It's not the slam-dunk you think it is, Dan. And Canada's more mature response since your first hot-headed Melian outburst a week or two ago tends to support my position on that. The more mature response was to acknowledge the legitimate border concerns Trump has and move quickly to address them - to AVOID a trade war. Do you still want to engage in a trade war with Trump, Dan? QED, indeed.
Wait, Justin Trudeau did what you think is advisable, without yet producing any kind of outcome, and you think that is proof you are right? How remarkably flexible your standards of evidence are.
Dan, read more carefully. What I said is that the federal government's recent approach, which is in line with Danielle Smith's approach from the beginning, "tends to support" my position. My position is that it is more mature to address Trump's concerns head-on than your and Doug Ford's hot-headed, trade-war-mongering reaction. I didn't claim this "proves" anything. It could be that neither approach would work; it could be that either approach would work (although yours would hurt Canada FAR more than it would hurt Trump before it is over, that's for sure). Even Ford had to back-track on his initial hot-headed, trade-war-mongering rhetoric. Premiers Legault and Moe don't want a trade war, either. The fact that cooler heads are prevailing everywhere except in your fevered mind should tell you something, Dan.
Grant, literally every time I publish an essay you show up here to excoriate my writing and revile me personally, and then do repeat that with every response I provide. Why? If I'm such a horrible thinker and writer, why waste your time? And more importantly, why waste mine? I don't want to block you so I will instead strongly urge you, as I have before, for your own productivity and mine, to stop. Productive disagreement is wonderful. This isn't. Not in the slightest. That is near-pathological nattering that is of no use for either of us or anyone else here. So please, go find better uses for your time.
I guess there's no telling you anything, then, Dan. You must know it all already.
BTW, I saw something the other day to the effect that the entire section of Bill Clinton's wikipedia page dealing with his relationship to Jeffrey Epstein has been expunged. It went from 47 mentions of Epstein, down to one. Apparently the editors have declined to put it back up. Is this correct?
I've scanned your articles again, Dan, and things don't become any clearer. You say that Trump is a "classic isolationist" because he thinks he doesn't need allies because the "two big beautiful oceans" will protect America. He is also a "classic isolationist" because he doesn't want to go to war defending "allies" who refuse to spend money defending themselves. But on the other hand, he isn't a "classic isolationist" because he spends more on the military - and even expanded it into space. You rather incoherently say that the point of NATO is to prevent wars through deterrence, while conceding that America's NATO allies don't spend enough money on their military to be an effective deterrent and when Trump does spend more it is apparently not for deterrence but rather just to "bully" other weaker countries. Trump is a gangster-style warmonger internationally, but two of his top appointments - Vance & Gabbard - don't want the USA to get involved in wars such as in Ukraine or Syria. In his first term, Trump got bitter enemies to sign the Abraham Accords; but this only proves he is an international gangster. Please make it all make sense.
*NO* American President has not been isolationist in that they all use military force to keep international trade routes open. Maybe it's your use of meaningless terms like "isolationist" and "warmonger," "bully," and "gangster" that is the problem.
Trump does use America's *economic* influence to persuade other countries to trade fairly. He imposes tariffs on China so they can't dump their state-subsidized (and slave-labour) goods; and he extends those tariffs to countries that trade with China so China can't circumvent his tariffs by cycling Chinese stuff through Canada and Mexico. He may do other forms of economic bullying with other countries. And some of Trump's trade policies might be stupid and self-defeating. But hey, trade is defined as a voluntary exchange; it takes two to trade. If America doesn't want to trade on terms that other countries want, that is their sovereign right. It isn't a "threat" to stop trading, or to change the terms of trade - unless you think that workers are "threatening" their employers when they withhold their labour for better wages or better working conditions. America's trading partners should stop crying and instead make themselves indispensable to the American economy. And clean up their state-managed economies, and other things that are in their own interest, anyway. That's the difference between Athens and America, Dan. You don't get the very basics, let alone the nuances, of foreign policy.
Literally no one has suggested my essays are unclear, Grant, but perhaps they're all deluded and my thinking really is a mess. If so, you should clearly stop wasting time reading it and writing these long, tendentious commentaries.
I've noticed that you have cultivated a stable of cheerleaders in your following. They almost all think along the same lines as you. Of course they don't see the refutations and contradictions. You need to get out of the TDS bubble more. I suppose most deep thinkers take your advise and depart from here. But I'm more stubborn than most.
If you think making a distinction between a 'threat' and a 'warning' is "tedious;" if you think that asking for concrete historical evidence for your wild and inconsistent speculations is "tedious;" you simply don't have a philosophical or scientific mind. But at least you keep trying, so there's maybe some hope.
Is the problem as simple as success breeds failure?
Every time things get good for a while we collectively lose the ability to discern what was creating the success or avoids failure and screw up on the next patch of ice.
Happy New Year Dan, and thank you for your insightful reflections.
Building on your « this too shall pass » comment, the following Buddhist fable has always comforted me in times of doubt or uncertainty, as well as joy and serenity. Enjoy, and again, Happy New Year.
- Dan Duguay, Ottawa Canada
There once was an old Zen farmer. Every day, the farmer used his horse to help work his fields and keep his farm healthy.
But one day, the horse ran away. All the villagers came by and said, “We're so sorry to hear this. This is such bad luck.”
But the farmer responded, “Bad luck. Good luck. Who knows?”
The villagers were confused, but decided to ignore him. A few weeks went by and then one afternoon, while the farmer was working outside, he looked up and saw his horse running toward him. But the horse was not alone. The horse was returning to him with a whole herd of horses. So now the farmer had 10 horses to help work his fields.
All the villagers came by to congratulate the farmer and said, “Wow! This is such good luck!”
But the farmer responded, “Good luck. Bad luck. Who knows?
A few weeks later, the farmer's son came over to visit and help his father work on the farm. While trying to tame one of the horses, the farmer’s son fell and broke his leg.
The villagers came by to commiserate and said, “How awful. This is such bad luck.”
Just as he did the first time, the farmer responded, “Bad luck. Good luck. Who knows?”
A month later, the farmer’s son was still recovering. He wasn’t able to walk or do any manual labor to help his father around the farm.
A regiment of the army came marching through town conscripting every able-bodied young man to join them. When the regiment came to the farmer’s house and saw the young boy's broken leg, they marched past and left him where he lay.
Of course, all the villagers came by and said, “Amazing! This is such good luck. You're so fortunate.”
And you know the farmer’s response by now…
"Bad luck. Good luck. Who knows?"
I know this one. Brilliant. An intuited sense of chaos theory applied to daily life: Everything is consequential, which may be terrifying, but we cannot know what the consequences are, which may be calming.
He didn’t win the presidency
"Released early last year, the latest iteration of that annual report contained a grim sentence: “Global freedom declined for the 18th consecutive year.” "
And who has been in power for 12 of those 18 years? Obama for 8, and "Biden" for 4. So, yeah - I know! - let's blame Trump. This is comedy gold, Dan.
I didn't blame Trump for an 18-year-long global trend, Grant. Because that would be bizarre. Almost as bizarre as this criticism.
Also, FTR, I think a major mistake people make -- both Americans and foreigners -- is grossly exaggerating the extent to which American presidents control events around the world. It would be silly to simply look at profound, long-term trends like these, say "post hoc ergo propter hoc," and praise or blame whichever president(s) were in office.
You blamed Bush for engaging in the wrong kind of "march for freedom," and you indicated at great length that Trump's "impulses and inclinations" in this respect are even worse than Bush's were. So maybe I got it wrong to infer that you were blaming Trump for being on the wrong side of the march for freedom. It's hard to tell where you are going with your inchoate historical lessons, sometimes. A thesis statement at the start, and a concluding summary paragraph, might assist you in keeping your thoughts on track.
I agree with your "FTR," though. I was going to point that, too, because that also wasn't clear from your presentations today.
Grant, nobody but you has ever said my essays are unclear. Maybe they're wrong. Maybe they're right. But they're not unclear.
"...in a few weeks the office once held by George W. Bush will come under the control of a man who attempted to subvert an election and who repeatedly promised to turn the executive branch into an instrument of personal vengeance."
That's inadvertently hilarious, Dan. The Presidency had come under the control of - I won't say demented Biden, but rather - mysterious forces that *actually succeeded* in undermining the 2020 election, and have repeatedly turned the executive branch into an instrument of personal revenge. *Everything* the benighted left attributes to Trump is merely a projection of their own dark, deep-state machinations.
No fewer than 51 former national security folks pretended that the Hunter Biden laptop was "Russian disinformation" prior to the 2020 election. We now know from the twitter files - thanks mainly to Taibbi and Schellenberger - that that was a concocted, a prefabricated lie of the first order and consequence. Dan, know a bunch of "facts," but you never seem to learn anything from history.
The January 6th "insurrection" was orchestrated by the FBI, who had dozens, by some estimates hundreds, of agents provocateur inside and outside the Capitol. Trump's advance attempts to bring in the national guard to deal with the anticipated crowds that day was rejected by the Democrats in charge - Pelosi and the Mayor of DC. They *wanted* an "insurrection." You have to be willfully blind not to see this by now.
We also know that the massive campaign of lawfare that has been conducted against Trump ever since the 2016 Russia collusion hoax has been an abject farce by his political opponents. Every last impeachment and legal case brought by Congress and the DoJ has been a confected conspiracy with zero basis in fact or law. (I'm not only a retired political philosopher, I'm also a retired lawyer. And although I never practiced law in the USA, I know how to read cases. The appalling level of legal abuse directed at Trump would have crippled a lesser man.)
This is a classic Gish gallop. I'm not playing along.
What? You don't think Taibbi & Schellenberger are reliable sources? You don't believe the evidence that has been presented in court in the J6th trials (and elsewhere besides)? You actually believe that a stale-dated book-keeping decision can be jimmied into 34 felony counts?... No, you're not "playing along" because you are massively ignorant of everything related to Trump, because you prefer your delusions.
Ultimately we need to hope, and assist as we can, that the best of human nature outweighs the worst over time. Tempus fugit.
Dan-
As a resident of the U.S. who has recently discovered you on Substack I find your writing to be totally clear (contrary to some of the comments here). What’s more I think you make very cogent observations about Trump and the U.S.
The U.S. has a tradition of anti-intellectualism that goes back to the mid-1800’s. We have had demagogues in the past; Huey Long and Joe McCarthy immediately come to mind. Trump is the first to become President. I think your prescription to raise the price of oil has the potential to affect Trump’s popularity quickly. Americans have a shockingly short attention span. The price of eggs bothered Trump voters more than how he handled the COVID pandemic. If we had to pay similar prices for gasoline as Canadians do Trump would have a big problem; if he complains Canada caused this it makes him look weak to his supporters.
Keep writing your posts!
From your article speaking of Trump (who I have no love for) "who repeatedly promised to turn the executive branch into an instrument of personal vengeance."
Do you mean exactly like the Clintons and the House and Senate did against Trump? I enjoy balanced arguments for and against all sides in politics but this is anything but balanced.
"Other people did bad stuff" isn't a rebuttal to the statement, "he said he'd do bad stuff." It isn't even relevant. And "other people did bad stuff 30 years ago" is even less of a rebuttal. And even less relevant.
As to the House and Senate, reasonable people can disagree about the propriety of the impeachments, but it's more than strange to say that the exercise of a lawful power of those bodies of the legislative branch of government is "exactly like" promising to turn a completely different branch of government "into an instrument of personal vengeance."
KBO indeed Dan! and keep writing too!
Dan here is trying to write Trump's horoscope: "You will fail by being isolationist and allowing dictators to win their wars, unless you fail by being a warmonger and invading peaceful neighbors." It doesn't matter which specific countries might end up being on either side of these "predictions," because if Trump is "isolationist" in other theatres of war or "warmongering" in different peaceful regions not currently being mentioned, the answer will be, "Well, I was only concerned with Trump's impulses and inclinations, not the specifics of history. And I was, after all, right about Trump's impulses and inclinations! He WAS a warmongering isolationist!" Horoscopes are inevitably correct, because inconsistent things are predicted.
Tell is what you really think, Dan: is Trump an isolationist or a bully, a warmonger? He can't be both. I'm looking for a falsifiable prediction; otherwise, it is just more blather. ("Trump will inevitably do exactly the wrong thing!" isn't a falsifiable prediction. It's a pretty reliable forecast for any politician, no matter who is making it.)
If that's still not clear, you're not reading. Or you are reading with blatant bad faith. Take your pick.
https://dgardner.substack.com/p/a-short-history-of-isolationism?utm_source=publication-search
https://dgardner.substack.com/p/please-stop-calling-trump-isolationist?utm_source=publication-search
https://dgardner.substack.com/p/oceanic-folly?utm_source=publication-search
As for falsifiable predictions, I noted over and over again in the pieces linked above, and elsewhere, that Trump will bully and threaten other countries, particularly smaller, weaker friends and allies. Since he won the election, he has done exactly that to Canada, Mexico, Panama, and Denmark. That's quite a list for someone who hasn't even taken office yet. QED, as they say.
Trump has made some typically Trumpian hyperbolic statements about Panama and Denmark which cannot be excused. (Unlike you, I can see good and bad in politicians; I don't have to see them in black-and-white terms.) We'll see if they amount to anything more than blather or teasing.
But Trump is not wrong to be peeved with America's neighbors, Canada and Mexico - nor with American allies in Europe. We have not been particularly good neighbors, or allies. QED?? It's not the slam-dunk you think it is, Dan. And Canada's more mature response since your first hot-headed Melian outburst a week or two ago tends to support my position on that. The more mature response was to acknowledge the legitimate border concerns Trump has and move quickly to address them - to AVOID a trade war. Do you still want to engage in a trade war with Trump, Dan? QED, indeed.
Wait, Justin Trudeau did what you think is advisable, without yet producing any kind of outcome, and you think that is proof you are right? How remarkably flexible your standards of evidence are.
And did you miss the story I linked to here? https://substack.com/@dgardner/note/c-83386731
Dan, read more carefully. What I said is that the federal government's recent approach, which is in line with Danielle Smith's approach from the beginning, "tends to support" my position. My position is that it is more mature to address Trump's concerns head-on than your and Doug Ford's hot-headed, trade-war-mongering reaction. I didn't claim this "proves" anything. It could be that neither approach would work; it could be that either approach would work (although yours would hurt Canada FAR more than it would hurt Trump before it is over, that's for sure). Even Ford had to back-track on his initial hot-headed, trade-war-mongering rhetoric. Premiers Legault and Moe don't want a trade war, either. The fact that cooler heads are prevailing everywhere except in your fevered mind should tell you something, Dan.
Grant, literally every time I publish an essay you show up here to excoriate my writing and revile me personally, and then do repeat that with every response I provide. Why? If I'm such a horrible thinker and writer, why waste your time? And more importantly, why waste mine? I don't want to block you so I will instead strongly urge you, as I have before, for your own productivity and mine, to stop. Productive disagreement is wonderful. This isn't. Not in the slightest. That is near-pathological nattering that is of no use for either of us or anyone else here. So please, go find better uses for your time.
I guess there's no telling you anything, then, Dan. You must know it all already.
BTW, I saw something the other day to the effect that the entire section of Bill Clinton's wikipedia page dealing with his relationship to Jeffrey Epstein has been expunged. It went from 47 mentions of Epstein, down to one. Apparently the editors have declined to put it back up. Is this correct?
I've scanned your articles again, Dan, and things don't become any clearer. You say that Trump is a "classic isolationist" because he thinks he doesn't need allies because the "two big beautiful oceans" will protect America. He is also a "classic isolationist" because he doesn't want to go to war defending "allies" who refuse to spend money defending themselves. But on the other hand, he isn't a "classic isolationist" because he spends more on the military - and even expanded it into space. You rather incoherently say that the point of NATO is to prevent wars through deterrence, while conceding that America's NATO allies don't spend enough money on their military to be an effective deterrent and when Trump does spend more it is apparently not for deterrence but rather just to "bully" other weaker countries. Trump is a gangster-style warmonger internationally, but two of his top appointments - Vance & Gabbard - don't want the USA to get involved in wars such as in Ukraine or Syria. In his first term, Trump got bitter enemies to sign the Abraham Accords; but this only proves he is an international gangster. Please make it all make sense.
*NO* American President has not been isolationist in that they all use military force to keep international trade routes open. Maybe it's your use of meaningless terms like "isolationist" and "warmonger," "bully," and "gangster" that is the problem.
Trump does use America's *economic* influence to persuade other countries to trade fairly. He imposes tariffs on China so they can't dump their state-subsidized (and slave-labour) goods; and he extends those tariffs to countries that trade with China so China can't circumvent his tariffs by cycling Chinese stuff through Canada and Mexico. He may do other forms of economic bullying with other countries. And some of Trump's trade policies might be stupid and self-defeating. But hey, trade is defined as a voluntary exchange; it takes two to trade. If America doesn't want to trade on terms that other countries want, that is their sovereign right. It isn't a "threat" to stop trading, or to change the terms of trade - unless you think that workers are "threatening" their employers when they withhold their labour for better wages or better working conditions. America's trading partners should stop crying and instead make themselves indispensable to the American economy. And clean up their state-managed economies, and other things that are in their own interest, anyway. That's the difference between Athens and America, Dan. You don't get the very basics, let alone the nuances, of foreign policy.
Literally no one has suggested my essays are unclear, Grant, but perhaps they're all deluded and my thinking really is a mess. If so, you should clearly stop wasting time reading it and writing these long, tendentious commentaries.
I've noticed that you have cultivated a stable of cheerleaders in your following. They almost all think along the same lines as you. Of course they don't see the refutations and contradictions. You need to get out of the TDS bubble more. I suppose most deep thinkers take your advise and depart from here. But I'm more stubborn than most.
If you think making a distinction between a 'threat' and a 'warning' is "tedious;" if you think that asking for concrete historical evidence for your wild and inconsistent speculations is "tedious;" you simply don't have a philosophical or scientific mind. But at least you keep trying, so there's maybe some hope.
Is the problem as simple as success breeds failure?
Every time things get good for a while we collectively lose the ability to discern what was creating the success or avoids failure and screw up on the next patch of ice.