5.21.20:
This update is connected to the cargo cult nature of the left. Read through to get the link to the term cargo cult as it applies to the left.
The cargo cult nature of the left is on full display in the politics of the Woohoo-flu.
Cargo cultism is a belief in things without any underlying understanding of the principles involved. Just as the cargo cults of the South Pacific during World War II would attempt to bring "goodies" from the skies by speaking into boxes ( that weren't radios); these people go through the motions of doing something that will purportedly bring out the results they seek.
Now they give us models that predict that Trump will lose because of the economy. Another cargo cult? Just might well be.
My how they may have cooked up the whole virus scare in order to bring about the result of winning an election against the Orangeman Bad. If my theory is correct, this won't work any better than the South Pacific Islanders attempting to bring goodies from the sky by speaking into wooden boxes.
6.12.19:
6:52 pm:
Reading through some tweets, it seemed that there were some of Dean's admirers who were upset at the questioning by GOP reps. But why? Are these people upset at the truth? Or why do they admire Dean?
All Dean did was to take care of himself. This is nothing to admire. It is the imposture of being somehow heroic that is galling to those who find nothing heroic in his behavior. He only turned because he feared punishment. Since then, he has profited from the betrayal of those who he once worked with.
Let's put it another way. Would Dean turn on Democrats if he could profit from it? Why would these people be so sure that this guy wouldn't betray them as well?
11:00:
John Dean should never be considered a hero. A hero gives up something of himself for a larger cause. What did John Dean give up? He seems to have profited off Watergate, and his felonious role in it.
Here is the conservapedia's account of John Dean. Even if you read the much friendlier Wikipedia entry, as I wrote down below, you should be able to see that John Dean is no hero.
If he had taken his medicine and become an honest man, it would be a credit for him. Once again, John Dean is trying to profit off his Watergate crimes.
5.20.19:
Time for an update. The name "John Dean" was mentioned again, so here goes.
The left has been compared to a cargo cult. The cargo cultists of World War II in the Pacific didn't understand the truth behind what they imitated. They went through the motions, but the magic didn't happen. Truth doesn't require magic, just understanding.
The left searched for its modern "Dean" in same manner as the cargo cultists prayed for goodies from the sky in airplanes. The cargo cultists didn't understand the science behind radios and airplanes. Science is based upon truth. The left didn't understand how John Dean's magic worked during the Watergate era. It worked because it was based upon truth. There was no "John Dean" today because there was no Watergate scandal today. If there was a Watergate, there were looking in the wrong spot! They may want to look in the mirror.
Seeking lies as your truth is like Satan casting himself out. "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
8.20.18:
The failing @nytimes wrote a Fake piece today implying that because White House Councel Don McGahn was giving hours of testimony to the Special Counsel, he must be a John Dean type “RAT.” But I allowed him and all others to testify - I didn’t have to. I have nothing to hide......— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 19, 2018
In response, John Dean said he turned down immunity, but that doesn't mean he got hammered. G.Gordon Liddy decided to not cooperate, and for this, he got a sentence so harsh that Pres. Jimmy Carter commuted the sentence.
John Dean may not have gotten immunity, but he still got off easy. He materially participated in the crime.
On the other hand, the POTUS Trump's lawyer may not know anything material about what is alleged against Trump. It is a fishing expedition.
8.7.18:
This post now segues into the Manafort Trial. It is now several days into the trial, and the star witness is on the stand. The question here is why should you believe Gates? Comparisons are made with Watergate and John Dean. Okay. Looking back at Watergate, if Dean's testimony was corroborated, then that part of what he said was credible. Seems to me that Dean's testimony was extensively corroborated, or was it?
Don't know if that is the case. At the time, I was still in high school. Dean's testimony seemed credible back then, but then, my skull was "full of mush". Supposedly, I grew up, and learned to think for myself. Basically back then, Dean's testimony was highlighted by a media that was hostile to Nixon. A gullible public ( or kid ) may find it credible and turn against the POTUS. Same thing can happen here with Gates, and a gullible public. If you want to be impartial, you need to have some way to corroborate the testimony in order to test for its truthfulness. A hostile media and a "cooperative" witness does not make it the truth. A person who does his due diligence does not accept the testimony of just one man. Likewise, even if several witnesses take the stand, their testimony must agree in a way that it cannot be dismissed as a railroad job.
So, I am not convinced by some of the headlines that I see on the usual suspect websites.
But the question is this: does the public believe it? Does the jury believe it? We saw in the OJ Simpson case that a trial does not necessarily produce the right outcome. Not that I would want to change our system of justice. But there does seem to be a problem here. What's to prevent a witness from making up a story in order to save his own skin?
7:00 pm:
You have to be pretty careful when you write about something like this, so as not to be misunderstood. I don't want to get in the business of helping people get away with doing some wrong. It's that I don't think that Trump has done anything wrong, and it is the other guys who are wrong. Events may show otherwise, but even if they showed otherwise, I would be very skeptical about it. I don't trust what these people say. I take it with a grain of salt.
A lot of what I write comes from the Wikipedia. This source has been criticized in the past, and I understand that.
What I learned in my reading is that what Dean said about Watergate, ( according to Wikipedia ) was correct. Now, the problem with John Dean was that he was happy to be Nixon's man until he ran the real risk of jail time. Then, he sang like a canary.
My problem is that if you make the decision to do something wrong, you have to face the consequences of that square on. Dean made it easier on himself. He got only four months of jail time for his part in the Watergate Cover-up. Liddy fell on the sword, so to speak, and got the book thrown at him by Judge Sirica. Jimmy Carter commuted his sentence, but Liddy spent some serious time in jail. ( not sure about the duration, there )
Naturally, the airs that Dean puts on sometimes, like he is a hero or something, rankle guys like Liddy. Liddy had to pay a settlement ( according Wikipedia again , Liddy makes it sound like HE won). So, I really don't know WHO really won this argument. What I DO know ( or think I know, since I am reading Wikipedia ) is that John Dean really did save his own skin. This in not the behavior of a hero by any stretch of the imagination. The liberal left loves him up, and it looks to me like Dean loves to play up the liberal audiences.
In the end, things will get sorted out. Or, at least one would hope so. But what concerns me is that a false confession could be wrangled out these guys in order to get a political advantage. That appears to me to be a real threat here. Flynn's conviction may be thrown out. We have to wait and see on that.
Originally posted 2.26.18 @ 8:52 am:
Who's the bad guy here? Well, the convention wisdom is that John Dean is a good guy. It is because he turned to their side in the Watergate scandal, and began "cooperating".
The reason I use scare quotes around the word cooperate, is that G. Gordon Liddy accused John Dean of lying in order to get favorable treatment. If John Dean did lie, then what he did was to bring down the Nixon presidency in order to make himself into a hero of sorts.
Truth is the gold standard here. But it might well get lost in the zeal of producing an outcome more to the liking of certain politicians and their followers.
That is why I wrote what I did yesterday. Even if the worst is true, that Trump enlisted the aid of Russians in order to win the election, it still isn't even illegal. But I doubt that it is true, or they would have had the information already. It wouldn't have taken them this long in order to produce and get it out there. Instead, what it seems to me that they need is some traitor type to make up a story that they can sell to the American public.
It may work. That is why I am saying we may need some sort of supernatural assistance to overcome this. If they are soliciting a lie in order to bring down a president, then they are the bad guys. That is what G. Gordon Liddy might have been getting at. John Dean is no hero. He is just as guilty as the rest.
There were lawsuits over Liddy's accusations, and I am not sure how it all worked out. My guess is that there is some truth to what G. Gordon Liddy said. This doesn't make G. Gordon Liddy a good guy. But it doesn't make Dean a good guy either. Neither should have been hired in the first place. But Nixon paid for that. The real problem here is the government interfered in the election. People heard about all this stuff during the election already. None of this is new. It didn't matter.
No, the thing that matters is that the "wrong" guy won, and so these people want to run the election all over again, or even get it thrown out. But we had the election. It didn't matter. It shouldn't matter now. No laws were broken.
Show where the law was broken, and don't give me any crap about obstruction of justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment