Texas Radio & the Big Beat
“I wanna tell you 'bout Texas Radio and the Big Beat
Comes out of the Virginia swamps
Cool and slow with deadly precision
With a back beat narrow and hard to master.”
– Jim Morrison
I'd like to discuss some people that I dislike, who are current or past inhabitants of the bowels of the Trump administration. Let's start with John Bolton. Like others of his ilk, he both favored the war in Vietnam, but figured out a way to avoid fighting in it. He is an old hand in DC, having worked for presidents Reagan, Bush 1 & 2, and most recently Trump. He has been a constant advocate for “regime change” in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, and Yemen. He worked to get Rehnquist and Scalia on the Supreme Court. He participated in the Iran-Contra scandal.
Thus, we can conclude two things: Bolton is a necro-conservative, and is no friend of the Democratic Party. But that does not mean that we cannot take pleasure in his emerging conflict with Donald Trump. As concerning as it was when he joined Trump's administration, there were hints of tensions between the two even before Bolton resigned. (Trump, of course, insisted he fired Bolton.)
From witness testimony before the House committees, we know that Bolton called Rudy Giuliani a “hand grenade” that would blow up inside the administration. He referred to the Ukraine plot as a “drug deal.” Bolton originally said through his lawyer that he would testify if he received a subpoena; since then, his attorney has recommended that he seek a federal court ruling regarding Trump's effort to prevent his testimony.
In conversations between Bolton's lawyer and a House committee, several things are known. These go far beyond what others have testified to thus far. Included are Bolton's private conversations with Trump, which the White House attorney claims are protected by “privilege.” Because these discussions illegal activities that are impeachable, there is no privilege.
More, Bolton had a series of conversations with both Mike Pompeo and Mark Esper about the folly of the White House's Ukraine operation. Apparently, all three were aware of the dangers of such an operation, and attempted to convince Trump it would backfire on him. Pompeo waivered at important times, due to his lack of backbone. Clearly, the military aide to Ukraine was not released until two days after the administration learned the whistle-blower's concerns were going to be made public.
Despite the stumbling blocks that have been set in place to prevent Bolton from testifying, it is likely that he will be a witness in the public hearings before Thanksgiving.
Now, briefly, let's look at the book “A Warning” by “Anonymous.” The book was authored by the same person or persons that wrote the infamous op-ed that was published when Bob Woodward's book “Fear” was released. Thus, it is safe to assume that the author/authors were coordinating with Woodward, who has a long history of destabilizing administrations by way of combining intelligence and journalism.
Trump was furious when the op-ed was published, and attempted to identify the identity of its author. If a top White House person was personally communicating with the New York Times, it would have been uncovered. Thus, we can speculate that Woodward advised the author(s) to have a lawyer representing the author(s) handle the situation. So we need to think …..which White House person has a close relationship with a lawyer that the NY Times would recognize as being connected to what was going on inside the administration?
No spokesperson for Trump disagrees publicly with the president. So let's look closer. Why, for example, has “Mourning Joe” refused to have Kellyanne Conway on for over a year? If we were to look back to the 24 hours after her last appearance, we would find my essay telling about how, during commercial breaks, Kellyanne pretended to put her finger down her throat to induce vomiting, and spoke about how out-of-control Trump was. Joe and Mika were sorely offended, and decided to not allow her on their show again.
But, does Conway have any known contact with a lawyer who dislikes Trump, and who the NY Times would recognize as representing the interests of one or more people in the White House? Let's think …..hmmmm …..might George fit that description?
In it, the author(s) explain that a group of high-ranking officials considered resigning together in public protest of Trump's behaviors. Is it a stretch to consider the possibility that this same general group of cowards joined together to write the op-ed and now the book? Does one find any hint in where the profits from the book will go? Surely the White House would easily discover if one person had a significant bump in income from a book publisher showing up in their tax returns.
A single author might donate proceeds to a charity. A group of contributors might be more likely to donate the funds, rather than attempting to divide the money fairly. And a group effort to prevent Trump from finding out who has betrayed him could be more successful than an individual's effort. This would make sense within the context of a system where such a group had considered a mass resignation.
Peace,
H2O Man
= new reply since forum marked as read
read the book, but my normal brother has recommended it to me. (He refers to humanity as a "failed species, soon to become extinct."
But it is a topic that Rubin and I used to discuss. Rubin believed that on the group level -- all people -- that there was an exact measure of "good" and "bad," following the law that for every action, there is an equal reaction. In that sense, it explains why, with all the horrors we witness in this world, we survive.
In his opinion, ever form of organic life on Earth either grows or decays. Having just come in from a morning walk with one of my dogs, I am aware that this old bag of bones is indeed on the decline. My attempts to slow the process helps, but I'm fully aware of the destination on this curious journey. For all organic life follows that route, which can be traced throughout the evolution of life-forms on this living Earth.
The evolution of human beings has reached its peak in the context of physical changes. The evolution of human beings now -- individually and as a group -- is the evolution of our consciousness. We can see that vast numbers of people believe that they are conscious, because they can touch, taste, smell, etc, and respond to physical impulses. Yet that cannot explain why people would, for example, vote for Trump, act against their own self-interests, and on and on. What does explain it is that they are organic machines, similar to a crocodile, participating exclusively in the organic cycle of physical growth and decay. They worship stained-glass windows, hoping it will lead to eternal life -- but not even dimly aware that we are always participating in the eternal, because it is always "Now," and will be Now in a hundred or a million years. Organic life is merely a turn in that eternal.
Yet we have evidence, both historically and currently, of individuals from around the globe, at various points in time, who we recognize as "enlightened." And despite some cultural distinctions, these women and men have attempted to teach (by way of example) the potential evolution of consciousness. And it is then, and only with that evolved consciousness, that we can begin to put both "good" and "bad" into its proper context.
Get me started on this topic, and I'll ramble on and on. For that is what old men do .....probably because we can't do much else!
Thank you 
