Who do You Trust?
Trust is the glue that holds humanity together. With it, great things are possible. Without it, we are like nomads wandering aimlessly in the desert. Trust is the foundation to all we do, to all we are, to all we hope to be. To breech a trust is to break faith with another person or with all of humanity. Where there is no trust, there is no love, no cohesion, no sense of purpose, no pathway to enlightenment. Trust requires a blending of both heart and mind, and the clarity of purpose to know the difference.
The opposite of trust is loyalty, a tenuous bond that is imposed on us against our will. Dictators have no respect for trust. They want only loyalty. They demand loyalty to them. And loyalty is synonymous with obedience. And so it is with liars. A liar respects neither truth nor trust. A liar loves chaos because he or she believes there are no facts, only opinions. A liar therefore creates his own facts. All dictators are liars, but all liars are not necessarily dictators.
We need to be able to distinguish the liars and the dictators, from the trustworthy, I don’t have a list of characteristics that are inviolably accurate for all time. I only know who I trust and who I do not. I tend to trust those who are kind, caring, loving, understanding, tolerant and forgiving on the affective side. On the cognitive side, they must also be logical, coherent, and driven by a set of principles. The principles include equal standing of all persons before the law and before Providence, adherence to a common set of values including respect for our heritage, for life, liberty, and justice. And they must be willing to stand up for those principles—not just when it is convenient to do so, but always.
I have met many doctors, lawyers, engineers, managers, business owners, religious persons, teachers, and politicians who were trustworthy; and a smaller number in each of those roles and professions who were not. I do not prejudge anyone, but I feel completely comfortable in my private world where I trust some, and do not trust others based on criteria consistently applied to everyone. I understand and accept the fact that others may not trust me for their own reasons. I am OK with that.
Let’s put my thesis to a few tests to see if they seem to be valid.
Here are a few hypothetical questions just to lay the groundwork for the broader question that is the subject of this article. First, would you let a convicted murderer/rapist take your teen age daughter out on an unescorted date? The answer to that question should be an easy “no.” Would you lend money to someone that you did not trust at all? If you are not bonkers or heavily sedated yourself, the answer to that question should also be a resounding “no.” Would you get into an airplane with a drunken pilot, with its engine sputtering and backfiring, for a flight to anywhere--with one wing missing? I’m pretty sure the answer to that question also is “no.”
Now here is the broader question that is not hypothetical at all: Would you vote for someone to be the president of the United States who had just told the American people and the world 15,345 fact-checked lies or misleading statements in the last 2 years, and 11 months? That is not a trick question. Several news sources have been keeping track of Donald Trump’s verified lies and misleading statements. The man is a pathological liar. You cannot trust anything he says. He may be delusional, without a conscience, or on a mind-bending drug. He may have bats in his belfry, or looney tunes ringing in his head. He may be only spouting somebody else’s propaganda, such as Vladimir Putin and his doctrinaires. It matters not. Nor does his, yours, or my political beliefs count for beans. Donald Trump is a clear and present danger to himself and to all others who inhabit this planet. His platform is to take from others while giving to himself. He rejects the learned views of scientists as casually as he accepts the deception of walls that cannot protect, and cages for children that subtract from their humanity. He does not respect military service as evidenced by his five deferments from service in Vietnam on the false premise of bone spurs in one of his feet. He does not respect women. He spends extravagantly on himself and his family with taxpayer dollars. He staffs his cabinet and his key agencies with loyalists, and often appoints those to head them with the purpose of dismantling them. He is a climate denier despite the tens of thousands of credentialed scientists who have revealed that we on are on a pathway to disaster, one that he chooses to follow. He takes credit for an economy that he inherited, and one kept running smoothly by trained economists and willing consumers.
Above all else, Trump has the nuclear codes. He could start a nuclear war in the next 5 minutes. Do you trust him to behave rationally with his authority? Now? Tomorrow? For the next 13 months? For the next 61 months?
Let’s get real. If you answered “yes” to any of those questions, you are part of the problem. I implore you seek help for propaganda overload coming from camp Trump. Those who keep track of such things tell us that Trump has about 63 million voters waiting eagerly to forgive him of all his past misdeeds, all his present misdeeds, and all of his future misdeeds—and stand ready to vote for him—right up to the moment when the nuclear bombs start exploding—when it will be too late. OMG! How easy it is to anesthetize the masses! Adolf Hitler and Josef Goebbels must be doing cartwheels somewhere. But our problem with Trump can be dealt by putting more pressure on him. The Senate needs to force those close to him to testify at his trial. If the final four who know of his misdeeds are on the agenda to tell what they know about him, there is a good chance that he will resign rather than get his face dragged through the mud of his own making. And that would be a victory for humanity. Under the majority vote rule, it would only take 51 senators to force the final four to show up and tell the truth. It could also be their last chance to do the right thing.
Carl Sagan and many other scientists dreaded the day when we would be confronted by untrustworthy liars and dictators in charge of our nuclear weapons. That day is here. This also could be our last chance to rebalance the scales so that honor and trust can save us all.
The problem with nuclear war is that Trump doesn't seem to understand the concept known as MAD (mutually assured destruction). I don't keep track of such things, but if memory serves me, last I heard was that we had 4500 nukes, and Russia had 6500. I believe that is enough to target all major military facilities and all major cities in the world with enough fallout to thin the human herd down to a few radioactive mutants.
I don't see the danger of nuclear war the way you do. Trump has, uncharacteristically and actually, to be expected, given his changeability, changed his mind after very strong aggressive pronouncements and avoided actual military involvement. I do see the danger of postponing action on global warming is much more pressing. He has reversed the long-term trend of nuclear disarmament.
Since the vice president only votes in a tie, I believe it would take a vote of 67 senators, unless there is one currently missing because of death with no replacement, to reach a two thirds majority. Based on what I have seen in the House vote, our representatives are voting loyalty rather than conscience, a dangerous precedent. They seem almost afraid to face the facts in a way that makes me wonder if the SS are looming in their offices, ready to take them off to concentration camps or worse, if they do not follow the prescribed party line: Since Donald Trump was elected by a majority of the people (false) and that he has made the economy prosperous (false) he should remain in office and should be elected by the same people in the same majority for another four years of wonderful tweeting tirades.
Ron
Love ya!
Jane
Rebecca