Blood, anyone? If Americans are lucky, they will observe DONALD bleed, losing his political life based upon common decency. Has it ever been appropriate to say, infer, suggest that DONALD did? NO.

Any loud-mouth politician of the nineteenth century would never refer to women of his day in this way. Twentieth century politicians avoided it. Twenty-first century politicians – there were clowns from the Republican Party a guy from Missouri who became an expert on pregnancy after rape, and an Indiana senate candidate stepping in a similar pit during the same election: Both lost. Now there is DONALD who purports to support women’s issues and health but likes to criticize women for their overall wavering emotional state, as though they are vampire slaves submissive to male overseers and masters. DONALD has read too many undead fantasy stories and seen too many movies with overly made-up actors.

That slice of culture does not allow DONALD to cast aside civil and social norms and rules of propriety that Americans have followed and accepted for centuries. DONALD’s locker room giggles, boardroom chuckles and men’s club guffaws are exceptions, but every male in those settings recognizes and knows the rules. Outside limited settings society’s rules and norms must be always observed.

DONALD’s debate was predicated by DONALD saying he was not a debater. This debate was a joint press-conference, not a debate. Yet, DONALD told the world, I am not preparing, I’ve never debated, I don’t need to prepare because I’m Donald, I’m as dumb as dirt, I am unprepared. Apparently, DONALD has never had a press conference. Unprepared is not the sort of person to become President.

Because he was unprepared for a joint-press conference, DONALD claims the questions were unexpected and unfair. Actually DONALD was too lazy to study, and to agitated to sit down and to self-assured to rehearse responses. DONALD had campaign support which he did not use. The message that he was not a debater was all right, but the message has became and is now DONALD WAS UNPREPARED.

So how did DONALD respond? The only way DONALD knew. Produce locker room giggles, boardroom chuckles and men’s club guffaws, all in a nation wide social setting. Where are society’s rules and norms? They should never come from DONALD whom no one should ever want as President.

Everyone in America has changed language used to describe one another. The last big outburst was in the early 1970s when language flowed freely, especially in the media. Words and terms American grew up with are justly and properly disused and locked away. The result comes not from political correctness. It comes from common decency, politeness and civility.

[Political correctness may be demonstrated by a list of words which should not be used to describe Hilary Clinton. It came from her campaign in the Spring of 2015. Polarizing was one such word. I don’t know what happened to that list, but any child of the Sixties knows what polarizing means, and that Hilary fits the definition.]

An inability to control’s one’s use of language and using those terms in speech or in emotional outbursts reveals a lack of intellectual rigor, an unceasing spontaneity of a mind spiraling out of control and a terminal ego. These are the physical and mental revelations of DONALD who should not be rewarded with any more attention from any American.


Leon Trotsky, The History of the Russian Revolution

This it not a book to read all at once. Of the first 75 pages there are passages of brilliance, but discussing the nits, grits and specificities of Russian politics before World War One and during that war, Trotsky is vague, general and cliched. They are revolutionary cliches:

“The semi-annulment of serfdom and the introduction of universal military service had modernized the army only as far it is had the country – that is, it introduced into the army all the contradictions proper to a nature which still had its bourgeois revolution to accomplish.”(p. 17)

That sentence, so full of promise, is meaningless. It is followed by general omissions found in many armies – from the officer’s corp to supply to training. It should be observed the Soviet armies were as ill-equipped and misled at the beginning of World War Two as the Tsar’s armies in World War One. Trotsky’s gross generalization lacks any foundation in history, except it states the obvious: Armies are usually under supplied whether the country has had a bourgeois revolution or not.

This cliche is mean to tell readers, familiar with Trotsky, exactly what Trotsky means, but apparently no one else. Those understanding readers will accept his historical fallacies because Trotsky can always say, “I was in a real revolution.”

Such cliches aside, Trotsky has used words and derived terms which should go into the language today. Cosmopolitan Adultery referred to pre-World War One royalty and nobility, their relations and activities, not always undercover. TODAY, there are numerous individuals in entertainment, elsewhere and wherever in America and around the world to whom this term may be applied. Use it!

Meanwhile, I’ll read further in this history, but not all at once.