[Charlie Southerland]

Anarchism, anarchy, anarchists, however loosely defined as you would like it, Andrew, preceded all of the major tyrannies I admit to knowing nothing about. The kind of anarchy you may or may not be associated or affiliated with does have some semblance of structure or some defined order or hierarchy at the top and soldiers (loosely defined). So, it is not truly anarchy for anarchy's sake. Someone makes the cute masks/balaclavas, someone buys and pays for the paint for the silly A moniker, someone tells other someones where to meet and cause trouble. You know, the general way Brown Shirts and Leninists used to do it. It's why lots of Leftists embrace Mao's communism instead of Stalin's communism. Mao is much more palatable than Lenin's version as appropriated by Stalin. China was still pretty primitive when Mao took over in 1949. A certain amount of anarchy took place before he succeeded, and then "your kind" was put in the same camps along with the other academics who ushered Mao in. Imagine the betrayal those folks felt.

"Contemporary" Communism and Socialism, whatever the hell that means, is as it has always been, an means to an end, which is State control and ownership of business and its people. Contemporary Communism classifies the people into castes. Lower class, middle class, upper middle class, and so on. It dehumanizes individuals (workers) for the collective good. It has been largely successful since the anti-Macarthyites, the true communists with their cocktail parties and gauche movie stars endeared themselves to an compliant political elite to entrench themselves into the system like parasites. (Apologies to parasites.) Anarchists are nowadays pretty much laughed at, much like we laugh at the remnants of the KKK, whose power is now only a joke at keggers in the backwoods. No one likes being laughed at, so once in a while, one of those "kind" does something really stupid and awful. Your position is untenable. Pretense is an awful thing to carry around on your shoulders. The thing that makes America resistant to the isms is its love for individualism in the face of "groupthink". Why would we willingly give up that which makes us unique among the entire world. We wouldn't. I don't.

[Simon Hunt]

Charlie's most recent post, like the thread as a whole, reminds me why it's not a good idea to wrestle with a pig: you can't win; you get covered in filth; and only the pig is having any fun.

[Charlie, I'm not calling you a pig--although your extreme abuse of the apostrophe merits some kind of counter-attack and although you have called me and my "ilk"(love that word!) roaches in need of extermination. Just making an analogy...]

I'll try not to succumb to the temptation of pig-wrestling again, but I do hope (and here I'm addressing my aforementioned ilk) that folks will continue to use this thread to document the doings of the Trump administration. I find it useful, even if there's a lot of static...

[Charlie Southerland]

That's funny, Simon. I was wrong to say you can't kill a cockroach. They can be stepped on and they make this wonderful crunching sound as you're doing it. I'm sure you've done it too. As for pig wrestling, you can win, you just have to be persistent. I'm a farm boy. It's true. I truly do have apostrohphitus and commaitis. I am challenged that way.

Trump did a most wonderful thing with his new Sec. of the Interior. He undid the acrimonious law detrimental to sportsmen and hunters. He opened up federal land to us. Good move. There'll be lots more places to hike and climb and ski and bird watch and the like. I love it.

[Andrew Frisardi]

Originally Posted by John Whitworth

I'm always suspicious of somebody who talks about ethics, Andrew. They usually want to pick my pocket.

What if the ethical considerations extend to the well-being of your descendants, John? Is that worth making sacrifices for and adjusting to environmental warnings? For instance, Polluted environments kill 1.7 million children a year. That includes your own, or their kids. Think about it. (And while you're at it, spot me a Fiver; somebody's gotta pay the Piper).

Here's my pocket, Andrew. Help yourself, friend.

Thanks, Ann. I just lightened John of his wallet, now that he has opened his heart for the benefit of his loin-fruit.

[Charlie Southerland]

Consequently, Andrew F. what are the ethical considerations of over a million abortions a year in America alone with regard to our descendants? Is that too, worth making those sacrifices for and adjusting to environmental warnings? Are you saying that genocide is justifiable for our own well-being? Overpopulation being what it is... Yep, somebody's gotta pay the Piper. Of course, that is if one believes the unborn is actually a human being. Additionally, what to do with all that medical waste? Burn it, bury it in a pit, make paté. Certainly an environmental issue, don't you think. I hope Trump dumps Planned Parenthood. Imagine when they get in line for unemployment. What skills do you have, sir? Well, I...

[Andrew Frisardi]

That may very well be, Charlie. I wasn't arguing about the abortion issue. I do believe in choice but I can understand the other side as well. It's certainly a complicated and deeply human question, I wouldn't deny that.

But to go off the issue at hand--the ethics of environmental protection--is a prevarication. You didn't address the problem of what to do about the environmental crisis, but went off into the abortion question. I wasn't talking about the latter. I raised the environmental issue because, as I mentioned, it's an aspect of the Trump administration that bothers me a lot, and because it's a concern for all living beings, not only liberals.

This latter point is ironically a reason for hope, since at least when we are all sick or dying from the environmental catastrophes that are surely coming or already here, we or our descendants will be able to agree on something: that it sucks to be sick and dying from a situation we could have prevented.

[Charlie Southerland]

That's the point, Andrew. There is no environmental crisis. It is a canard. The canard is the crisis.

[Andrew Frisardi]

[Nigel Mace]

Perhaps this thread could pose one new question.
In the light of 'Charlie's' latest post - is 'Charlie' real? You know, like that little safety valve where one has to prove one is "not a robot".
How would he do, for example, when asked to click on all the melting glaciers, or tsunamis, or images of industrial smog?

If 'Charlie' is real and so deeply motivated by whatever it is that he thinks/feels he is motivated by - perhaps 'he' could pass the "not a robot" test by penning some poetry that displays his political/social beliefs.
If a poem within this thread is against the rules - though they seem pretty flagrantly in abeyance throughout this thread - perhaps 'Charlie' could start a new Metrical - or non-metrical (I'm not prejudiced) - thread which could illuminate the Muse of Trumpery. This is a poetry website after all. It was Cecil Day Lewis who asked it first - so 'Where Is Our Trump Poet'?

[Ann Drysdale]

Cinderella's Coach, Pandora's Box. Pennsylvania Review.