Here’s One Monument Tr-mp Didn’t Mind Dishonoring

A few days ago, Tr-mp, morally confused, equated Nazis with those fighting Nazis. He equated racist haters with those fighting racism and hate. He conflated imperfect nation-building revolutionaries in 1776 with slavery-defending traitors in 1861. But that wasn’t enough. Today he tweeted:

Sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments.

He was, of course, referring to the treacherous heroes of haters, people like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. And Tr-mp finished with this:

…the beauty that is being taken out of our cities, towns and parks will be greatly missed and never able to be comparably replaced!

It’s not odd that Tr-mp sides with the haters. And it’s not odd that he does so rather robustly and openly. What is odd is that he expresses such profound regard for “our beautiful statues and monuments,” considering he launched his political career by dumping his orange doo-doo—birtherism—on one of the most important monuments to the greatness of America: President Barack Obama.

Ten Augusts ago, during the crowded Democratic primary season of 2007, not many people thought a black man with a strange name would win the nomination of the Democratic Party—once the home of segregationists and other racists—not to mention win the presidency of a nation whose economic power was initially built on the backs of slaves. But win he did. And his win was truly monumental. And Donald Tr-mp, like a diarrhea-plagued pigeon, pooped all over our first African-American president, the living monument to the most prominent promise of America, the radical idea that some of us are still trying to perfect: that no matter who you are or where you came from, you are free to craft your own future.

Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention in 2008 featured these words:

Four years ago, I stood before you and told you my story—of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren’t well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.

It is that promise that has always set this country apart – that through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our individual dreams but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well.

That’s why I stand here tonight. Because for two hundred and thirty-two years, at each moment when that promise was in jeopardy, ordinary men and women – students and soldiers, farmers and teachers, nurses and janitors — found the courage to keep it alive.

From Tr-mp’s embrace of racist birtherism to his labeling the free press his “enemy” and “the enemy of the people” to his advocacy of political and police violence to this week’s purposeful equivocation regarding the moral status of white supremacists and Nazis, he has been crapping on many of America’s greatest monuments, while defending its bad ones.

And he has never apologized—and never will—for desecrating that national monument named Barack Hussein Obama.



  1. A Facebook friend posted something a few days ago that made me sit back in my chair – and almost fall off. It reads:

    “The Paradox of tolerance, first described by Karl Popper in 1945, is a decision theory paradox. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant.”

    Now think about that for a minute. As the Confederate monuments are being taken down, it’s as if we are living in a Popper world.


    • @ Herb,

      I think Popper’s paradox, as you describe it, is unrealistic because it says, ” . . . if a society is tolerant without limit, . . . ” People aren’t capable of unlimited tolerance. In a quantum-mechanical universe, randomness ensures that such superlatives do not occur. It also ensures, interestingly, that almost anything is possible, even the election of narcissistic, sociopathic bigot as president. That’s where my intolerance rises like bile in the throat.


      • Jim, not sure what Popper meant by “if a society is tolerant without limit.” I think he was saying something like, “If a society strives for tolerance . . .” But the influence of intolerance will always prevent the society from achieving its goal of “tolerance without limit.” But, in that case, it would not be a paradox because “tolerance” is not absolute. In terms of the universe, I see it as the constant fight against entropy.

        I would analogize Popper’s argument to “equality.” Total equality in terms of human relationships is not achievable because all humans are not equal. So, although the idea of total equality is laudable, it is nonetheless unachievable.


        • Hmm. Speaking of entropy, that is a true paradox to me. I’ve never understood how the complexity of living organisms can arise naturally out of pure randomness (the big bang.) Entropy applies perfectly to thermodynamics but not to the god problem. Why should anything exist?

          Of course, you know better than anyone else I know that there are two kinds of “equality.” There is equality of competence and then there’s equality of human rights, an abstraction of man but not of nature. I see an equivalence in this. Complexity defies entropy in quantum mechanics and human equality defies nature, but both exist. Please let me know when you get this figured out. Thanks.


          • As to the complexity of living organisms arising naturally out of pure randomness (the big bang), I wrote a paper on this a few years ago. I called it “You Can Only Get Something From Nothing If Nothing Is Something.” I posit that there is no uncaused cause, no ex nihilo events. If you’re interested, I have posted it on

            I just have trouble with the terms “equal” and “equality” I much prefer the words “fair” and “fairly.” It’s those damn Enlightenment philosophers getting just a little too damn abstract and not pragmatic enough. Consider Jefferson’s famous phrase in the Declaration of Independence imputing “equality” for all. But, of course, it wasn’t for all. Women, Native Americans, blacks in general and slaves in particular, along with those didn’t own property or couldn’t trace their heritage to Western Europe, were blatantly unequal.


  2. Anonymous

     /  August 17, 2017

    Popper’s falsification theory says that making mistakes is an important component of progress. If true, the current leader of the free world has us in warp drive.


  3. Heading in a slightly different direction: a new CBS poll finds that 67% of Republicans believe Trump’s response to the Charlottesville madness was appropriate. If you are still an “independent” — wondering about which party to support — and you you can’t tell the difference, you’re a racist and an embarrassment to democratic ideals. If you’re still a Republican — you own this nasty disaster.
    Seems to me the new Trump Party has led us into a new sort of civil war. Think your Republican neighbor won’t come for you in the night with a gun, a bomb, or a torch? Think again.


  4. ansonburlingame

     /  August 18, 2017


    “wondering about which party to support — and you you can’t tell the difference, you’re a racist and an embarrassment to democratic ideals.” Pretty absolute, are you not? What about someone like me who continues to refuse to support either party but can easily “tell the difference” between to two, for sure? In other words “they are both wrong”.

    I would love to post this one “anonymously” but you are smart enough to see it came from me!!! So I will again offer an alternative to consider, or at least try to do so.



    • Yessir. You bet. In this situation I am resolutely absolute. Enough of your “independent” false equivalency bullshit. Cling to some security blanket of your inherent racism if you must, but don’t expect people of conscience to give you a pass. The Democrats are imperfect, but for now — as a Democratic Socialist — that’s who I support. The GOP alternative is so vile and disgusting and un-American I cannot imagine how anyone with an ounce of integrity or fairness or compassion aligns with them.


      • The GOP alternative is so vile and disgusting and un-American I cannot imagine how anyone with an ounce of integrity or fairness or compassion aligns with them.

        Because, in what he laughingly calls his mind, no matter how bad the GOP might be, it’s still better than the “Democrat Party” that haunts his self-induced fever dreams. You calling yourself a “Democratic Socialist” is, in his alleged mind, redundant: the platform of “the Democrat Party” is socialism, which always and only leads to punishing success, rewarding failure, and the agents of the One World Antichrist Government riding around in those little golf carts with guillotines on the back, for handy execution of Real True Christians and anyone else caught trying to buy or sell without the Mark of the Beast, as foretold by the Prophet Jack Chick and the Blessed Martyr John Birch.

        (I’m exaggerating for comic effect, of course; as you may have noticed over however many centuries Duane has been letting him literally shit in the punch bowl, prestonbrooks’ Anson’s actual “thoughts” are nowhere near that nuanced and coherent.)

        Liked by 1 person

  5. @ Duane,

    Thanks for reminding us in this Orwellian period of the humanity and eloquence that was so recently displayed by one of our most qualified Presidents. The contrast is startling. The body politic must be reminded of this amid the moral confusion of Trumpism if it is ever to rectify the mistake of 2016. If they fail to do so in 2020, then the American experiment will truly be moribund.


%d bloggers like this: