Hopefully the deadly disasters sweeping Red states will wake up GOP voters & motivate them to demand their politicians stop taking money from fossil fuel billionaires while lying to their voters
I'm pretty sure they will never leave the GOP. The disasters will be the fault of the Democrats and their government regulations. As their homes get destroyed it will be the Democrat's fault that they can't get heavily subsidized home insurance so they can get a rebuilt house paid for by the rest of us. I will be the Godless Democrats that are bring God's fury on them. Heck, they will probably even claim that if everybody had AR15 they could shoot the tornado to death. (see how I pulled the GOP's favorite issue of assault weapons into it). Sounds crazy? Not to the MAGA crowd.
Unfortunately, as noted in yesterday's Substack, the messaging of these groups relies on and exploits the amygdala hijack based on fear, which will override logic and reasoning.
What FDR realized was the seeing results is believing. He accomplished that through the PWA and the CCC. We can still see evidence of these efforts today with at least one building in every small town in America and thousands of acres of trees or terraced fields.
Rather than trying "solve" climate change, perhaps the focus should be on developing tangible results in adaptation and resilience. Biden has taken a results-based approach this through the BIP and the IRA, so it is not unknown or untried in recent times.
Perception is reality. Any efforts to fund adaptation and resilience to climate change need to include massive elements of funding for communication and stakeholder engagement. The Biden Administration's White House communications team presents a glimmer of hope that this type of needed effort can succeed in an era of out-of-control corporate media.
The shackles need to be removed from communicating where government gets results.
Jimmy Carter was such a good president; so sad to learn that he was denied a 2nd term due to treachery by the GOP. Presidents today should ask when making a decision, "What would J.C. do?", and it wouldn't matter if they had Carter or Christ in mind, because both put the community's welfare ahead of their own egos. Very different view from that the fossil fuel billionaires have.
Once again, thanks Thom for the warning; can't say you didn't try. You did all you could, but there are many who won't listen. Instead, they'll do what they usually do -- distract us with other non-issues.
I've noticed that the Christian Right is still blaming the "wrath of God" for the climate disasters! So given the beliefs from the European Middle Ages still active combined with the oil oligarchy I think we are in serious trouble. There needs to be dramatic climate protection now.
What minds? Critical thinking is no longer a part of the Republican voter mindset if it ever was. Decades of conspiracy theories and gaslighting by conservative media has numbed conservative voters ability to view reality and actually has exacerbated the ability to live and worship a lying criminal malignant narcissist as their idol. Climate change? But but “ it’s snowing nonstop! How can it be global warming “ ? To try to explain to the climate change doubters the difference between climate and weather patterns is practically hopeless. Their mind is set on willfully ignoring facts and good luck changing it. And I agree with comments by JPrato. They have been programmed by the repug media to stay in their lazy feedback loop and not deviate in blaming the “leftist Democrats” for everything bad in their lives so they continue to vote for the nihilistic policies of Republicans. They just can’t see voting for anyone other than someone with an R after their name in a perpetual reward for stupid.
I have to add, today is the 55th anniversary of The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination. Instead of honoring one of the greatest men that ever lived, we are obsessed with the grifter's circus in NYC. Shame on us! On NPR here in GA, they at least honored Dr. King with memories from the organist who played for Dr. King for two days in the chapel at Spellman, where he lay and from the last lady to speak with him, before he died.
Cap and Trade works! We tried to get a regional cap and trade deal done in the Northeast, with several states participating except of course, NJ which at the time had Christie as Governor. Then Sandy hit; you think that would affect people's thinking, but no. On another front, 'Poorly educated, ignorant red state voters' says it all. Schools in the Southern states are horrible. Combined with the US' low ranking in public education globally, no one in these Red states can understand the science, health concerns of climate change. After Brown v. The Board, public schools became mostly minority and whites establish their own private schools in the South. Essentially, the South ended up paying for 2 separate school systems, neither of which is very good. Back in 2011, when my son was applying to colleges, each High School across the country was assigned a number. Colleges looked at that ID number and, if you went to a Southern school, you were penalized. We lived in NJ, so didn't affect us. Why else would these people vote for Trump? Ignorance, delusion... The big case against Trump was the criminal Tax Fraud case against Trump Org.; you'd think that would really show voters that a guy who lies on his taxes should not be President. But, his voters? They just don't understand the crime.
Exactly, the solution is a carbon tax, or better yet a carbon dividend where the money could reduce people's Federal taxes. This was supported even by the Libertarian Cato Institute, IMF, Yale Young Republicans. I am very disturbed a carbon dividend seems to have disappeared from discussion about climate change.
One thing I have yet to understand is that the affected regions are full of Evangelical Holy-Rolling Christian nationalists yet nobody there seems to attribute the destruction to God's punishment. Of course, if somebody did, it begs the question: Punishment for what? Is it just tolerance of air and water pollution, or might other sins be stirring up God's displeasure?
No, it will not wake them up or change their minds. I know too many Red Staters, most of my relatives, these are not scientific thinkers, they are not logical thinkers, they're magical thinkers, they have a pseudo-religious belief that the supply of fossil fuels is infinite, will never run out, and burning fossil fuels has nothing to with the "climate change hoax." They tell me renewable energy "won't work."
I can give them all kinds of information and it never sinks in. Most of them probably think that tornadoes and hurricanes and other natural disasters are acts of God punishing America for having wokeness and critical race theory and liberals.
Its more of the alternate reality that Republicans embrace.
Having no realistic views about what needs to change they encourage each other to continue to deny what very well might kill them , but definitely will ruin the possibility of our children and grandchildren to be able thrive on earth. Oil provides lots of financial supports for GOP s election candidates.
Thats because they are willing to lie for the Oil companys.
In return the corporations give them money to keep them in office, and the corruption goes on and on.
This is militant ignorance . ‘I refuse to know the truth and I benefit from my lie.’
I'm not optimistic. The connection between up-close-and-personal severe weather and an abstraction like climate change isn't intuitive. For a non-scientist (like me), it takes a fair amount of listening, reading, and thinking to put the pieces together, and even then I need to make a leap of faith to really get it. It also helps that I live among people who take it seriously, some of whom are even doing things about it, and in a state (MA) where it's even being factored into public policy. These red-state Republican voters have none of these advantages. They don't trust any authority that tries to tell them what they don't want to hear. So -- I'm not optimistic. People who were in denial about COVID-19 aren't going to have much trouble remaining in denial about climate change.
Well, here we are again. Reagan the destroyer took a sledgehammer to the progress that had been made toward clean energy. He is blamed, rightfully, for terrible policies and backtracking benefitting the oil industry tycoons. But too often, the fact is overlooked that the voters bought Reagan’s schtick. One could even claim that he had a mandate. Reagan Democrats were plentiful.
We find the same phenomenon in Thom’s article. “Fully fifty-eight percent of Republican and Republican-leaning voters say climate change is “not an important concern””. The cause of this ignorance in red states is a “poorly educated electorate” because “…per capita spending on public education…” is among the lowest. He recognizes “widespread ignorance” about the severity and origins of our problem.
So, the root cause, ostensibly is inadequate funding of “public education”. And, I guess the problem is cyclical since the inadequacy of funding is because the voters have been hoodwinked, once again. When are we going to take a closer look at what is happening here and at the more fundamental issues? Or, will we forever repeat the cycle until it all becomes irrelevant?
Under our constitutional system in which democratic ideals are preeminent, government has a legitimate and necessary role to play in ensuring that the people will be educated, informed, and enabled in self-governance. Public schooling is a crucial element in preparing the public for participation in their government as adults.
However, there are lines which must never be crossed and limitations on government involvement in or interference with education and schooling that must be respected and observed. Censorship in the form of book banning, prior restraint on the speech and instructional processes of teachers, and rigid and politically motivated control over curricular content are expressly forbidden. Involuntary indoctrination or coercive means to “teach”, instruct, and impose upon students a particular brand or flavor of ideas, beliefs, attitudes, dogma, doctrine, or officially selected materials and content are prohibited in the democratic tradition.
Government must not be the source of the actual “educational” materials and information or data which are utilized in forming the thoughts, attitudes, and opinions of students. Religious, political, and philosophical beliefs and doctrine must not ever have the special or exclusive imprimatur of government or be allowed to creep in under the guise of governmental power and obligation.
The libertarians and various other right-leaning groups and individuals are talking out of both sides of their mouths. They believe that big government should let parents, or the states on their behalf if they are sufficiently reactionary, decide on the controversial issues having to do with education. That is, except when a fanatical and fascistic governor wants to write the entire curriculum and to prescribe what textbooks to use or what should be included in and excluded from textbooks and curricular materials.
Those of us who have a different perspective can point out the contradictions and articulate what we believe and what role we see for government. However, we are not in control of much of anything, we have our own differing conceptualizations relative to education, and it seems impossible to define the parameters or the terms and specifications which could be implemented as guidelines and official rules.
First, we can say definitively that those on the right end of the spectrum clearly have it wrong with regard to what roles government should play and how much input, control, and oversight it should have. Government is not tyrannical unless we allow tyrants to overpower the rule of the people through power plays, inordinate influence on the part of the wealthy and corporations, corruption, and the failure or inability of the people to participate adequately in the decision-making processes. Government should make educational opportunities a top priority because an educated population is the engine of democracy. But government is the tool, not the legitimate authority in this highly personal and private cognitive domain.
Government is of, by, and for the people. WE are the government to the extent we are a democratic republic. Government is not inferior to the “free market”, to business, to technological wizards, or to wealthy individual corporations. Government has the ability, resources, personnel, legal reach and authority, and institutional memory to perform hundreds of roles beyond national security, policing, and traffic management. And, yes, government MUST do whatever it possibly can to support educational endeavors and institutions.
Nevertheless, no one, and least of all government should dictate to teachers, parents, or children how, when, or where they will obtain and achieve education, and no one is or can ever be qualified to determine curriculum as a function of official government policy. Government MUST be neutral where issues, opinions, and the specific content of curricula are concerned.
Once more, the distinction must be emphatically made. School is NOT, I REPEAT, NOT EDUCATION!!!!! Do not take my word for it. Einstein said, “Education is not the learning of facts but the training of the mind to think.” I have a more lengthy and eloquent quote from Einstein which I can’t include here that spells it out more definitively. Traditional schools train the mind to adopt the thinking of others. This is not a difficult or complex distinction. The distinction is primarily qualitative but is also quantifiable to some extent.
On any given day in any given school classroom under optimal conditions for that school, education is likely to be accomplished for only a small fraction of the students present. For any given student in any given time period, including a top performing student such as Thom Hartmann surely was, education occurs during a tiny fraction of that time. The proportion of that student’s education ultimately attributable to school is most probably somewhere in the low single digits, great teachers notwithstanding. And, someone with an exceptional education certainly should not swallow the mythology that credits the school with much more without careful scrutiny. The concept of teaching is more myth than reality, as well.
Government may create schools. Government may fund schools. Government may properly oversee such matters as discriminatory treatment, unequal school resources, protecting teacher, staff, and student civil rights, building safety, health conditions and services, etc., etc. But requiring attendance does NOTHING to guarantee public education or literacy levels, and indeed, defeats those purposes MORE OFTEN THAN NOT.
Requiring attendance requires a panoply of limiting and confining restrictions, prohibitions, intrusions, inappropriate behavioral controls, incessant evaluations and measurements (of unmeasurable and ineffable factors and attributes, such as learning and education), a cumbersome bureaucratic edifice, an authoritarian hierarchy, endless rules, unrealistic policies, and an obsession with accountability, despite no effective means of holding any individual accountable except in the most egregious violations of law or policy. Compulsory attendance is unconstitutional, paternalistic, and counterproductive. Why is it so difficult for intelligent and aware individuals to get their heads around this simple concept?
Where is the logical reasoning or empirical evidence and verification of the boastful claims repeated ad infinitum by school boosters and school officials disproving these obvious truths? It is astonishing that our leaders on the left lack clarity and perspective on these issues.
Among Chomsky's observations about "the most dangerous organization in the history of mankind," was one publication of Trump’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a detailed study recommending an end to regulations on emissions.
"It presented a rational argument: extrapolating current trends, by the end of the century we’ll be over the cliff and automotive emissions don’t contribute very much to the catastrophe – the assumption being that everyone is as criminally insane as we are and won’t try to avoid the crisis. In brief, let’s rob while the planet burns, putting poor Nero in the shadows."
According to Chomsky this surely qualifies as a contender for the most evil document in history.
I'm pretty sure they will never leave the GOP. The disasters will be the fault of the Democrats and their government regulations. As their homes get destroyed it will be the Democrat's fault that they can't get heavily subsidized home insurance so they can get a rebuilt house paid for by the rest of us. I will be the Godless Democrats that are bring God's fury on them. Heck, they will probably even claim that if everybody had AR15 they could shoot the tornado to death. (see how I pulled the GOP's favorite issue of assault weapons into it). Sounds crazy? Not to the MAGA crowd.
Your analysis is absolutely logical.
Unfortunately, as noted in yesterday's Substack, the messaging of these groups relies on and exploits the amygdala hijack based on fear, which will override logic and reasoning.
What FDR realized was the seeing results is believing. He accomplished that through the PWA and the CCC. We can still see evidence of these efforts today with at least one building in every small town in America and thousands of acres of trees or terraced fields.
Rather than trying "solve" climate change, perhaps the focus should be on developing tangible results in adaptation and resilience. Biden has taken a results-based approach this through the BIP and the IRA, so it is not unknown or untried in recent times.
Perception is reality. Any efforts to fund adaptation and resilience to climate change need to include massive elements of funding for communication and stakeholder engagement. The Biden Administration's White House communications team presents a glimmer of hope that this type of needed effort can succeed in an era of out-of-control corporate media.
The shackles need to be removed from communicating where government gets results.
Jimmy Carter was such a good president; so sad to learn that he was denied a 2nd term due to treachery by the GOP. Presidents today should ask when making a decision, "What would J.C. do?", and it wouldn't matter if they had Carter or Christ in mind, because both put the community's welfare ahead of their own egos. Very different view from that the fossil fuel billionaires have.
Once again, thanks Thom for the warning; can't say you didn't try. You did all you could, but there are many who won't listen. Instead, they'll do what they usually do -- distract us with other non-issues.
I've noticed that the Christian Right is still blaming the "wrath of God" for the climate disasters! So given the beliefs from the European Middle Ages still active combined with the oil oligarchy I think we are in serious trouble. There needs to be dramatic climate protection now.
What minds? Critical thinking is no longer a part of the Republican voter mindset if it ever was. Decades of conspiracy theories and gaslighting by conservative media has numbed conservative voters ability to view reality and actually has exacerbated the ability to live and worship a lying criminal malignant narcissist as their idol. Climate change? But but “ it’s snowing nonstop! How can it be global warming “ ? To try to explain to the climate change doubters the difference between climate and weather patterns is practically hopeless. Their mind is set on willfully ignoring facts and good luck changing it. And I agree with comments by JPrato. They have been programmed by the repug media to stay in their lazy feedback loop and not deviate in blaming the “leftist Democrats” for everything bad in their lives so they continue to vote for the nihilistic policies of Republicans. They just can’t see voting for anyone other than someone with an R after their name in a perpetual reward for stupid.
Until a tornado hits DC, Repubs will not care about global warming, and maybe not even then.
I have to add, today is the 55th anniversary of The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination. Instead of honoring one of the greatest men that ever lived, we are obsessed with the grifter's circus in NYC. Shame on us! On NPR here in GA, they at least honored Dr. King with memories from the organist who played for Dr. King for two days in the chapel at Spellman, where he lay and from the last lady to speak with him, before he died.
Cap and Trade works! We tried to get a regional cap and trade deal done in the Northeast, with several states participating except of course, NJ which at the time had Christie as Governor. Then Sandy hit; you think that would affect people's thinking, but no. On another front, 'Poorly educated, ignorant red state voters' says it all. Schools in the Southern states are horrible. Combined with the US' low ranking in public education globally, no one in these Red states can understand the science, health concerns of climate change. After Brown v. The Board, public schools became mostly minority and whites establish their own private schools in the South. Essentially, the South ended up paying for 2 separate school systems, neither of which is very good. Back in 2011, when my son was applying to colleges, each High School across the country was assigned a number. Colleges looked at that ID number and, if you went to a Southern school, you were penalized. We lived in NJ, so didn't affect us. Why else would these people vote for Trump? Ignorance, delusion... The big case against Trump was the criminal Tax Fraud case against Trump Org.; you'd think that would really show voters that a guy who lies on his taxes should not be President. But, his voters? They just don't understand the crime.
Great discussion, Thom.
Exactly, the solution is a carbon tax, or better yet a carbon dividend where the money could reduce people's Federal taxes. This was supported even by the Libertarian Cato Institute, IMF, Yale Young Republicans. I am very disturbed a carbon dividend seems to have disappeared from discussion about climate change.
https://diaryofthelastage.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-carbon-dividend.html
One thing I have yet to understand is that the affected regions are full of Evangelical Holy-Rolling Christian nationalists yet nobody there seems to attribute the destruction to God's punishment. Of course, if somebody did, it begs the question: Punishment for what? Is it just tolerance of air and water pollution, or might other sins be stirring up God's displeasure?
No, it will not wake them up or change their minds. I know too many Red Staters, most of my relatives, these are not scientific thinkers, they are not logical thinkers, they're magical thinkers, they have a pseudo-religious belief that the supply of fossil fuels is infinite, will never run out, and burning fossil fuels has nothing to with the "climate change hoax." They tell me renewable energy "won't work."
I can give them all kinds of information and it never sinks in. Most of them probably think that tornadoes and hurricanes and other natural disasters are acts of God punishing America for having wokeness and critical race theory and liberals.
Its more of the alternate reality that Republicans embrace.
Having no realistic views about what needs to change they encourage each other to continue to deny what very well might kill them , but definitely will ruin the possibility of our children and grandchildren to be able thrive on earth. Oil provides lots of financial supports for GOP s election candidates.
Thats because they are willing to lie for the Oil companys.
In return the corporations give them money to keep them in office, and the corruption goes on and on.
This is militant ignorance . ‘I refuse to know the truth and I benefit from my lie.’
I'm not optimistic. The connection between up-close-and-personal severe weather and an abstraction like climate change isn't intuitive. For a non-scientist (like me), it takes a fair amount of listening, reading, and thinking to put the pieces together, and even then I need to make a leap of faith to really get it. It also helps that I live among people who take it seriously, some of whom are even doing things about it, and in a state (MA) where it's even being factored into public policy. These red-state Republican voters have none of these advantages. They don't trust any authority that tries to tell them what they don't want to hear. So -- I'm not optimistic. People who were in denial about COVID-19 aren't going to have much trouble remaining in denial about climate change.
Well, here we are again. Reagan the destroyer took a sledgehammer to the progress that had been made toward clean energy. He is blamed, rightfully, for terrible policies and backtracking benefitting the oil industry tycoons. But too often, the fact is overlooked that the voters bought Reagan’s schtick. One could even claim that he had a mandate. Reagan Democrats were plentiful.
We find the same phenomenon in Thom’s article. “Fully fifty-eight percent of Republican and Republican-leaning voters say climate change is “not an important concern””. The cause of this ignorance in red states is a “poorly educated electorate” because “…per capita spending on public education…” is among the lowest. He recognizes “widespread ignorance” about the severity and origins of our problem.
So, the root cause, ostensibly is inadequate funding of “public education”. And, I guess the problem is cyclical since the inadequacy of funding is because the voters have been hoodwinked, once again. When are we going to take a closer look at what is happening here and at the more fundamental issues? Or, will we forever repeat the cycle until it all becomes irrelevant?
Under our constitutional system in which democratic ideals are preeminent, government has a legitimate and necessary role to play in ensuring that the people will be educated, informed, and enabled in self-governance. Public schooling is a crucial element in preparing the public for participation in their government as adults.
However, there are lines which must never be crossed and limitations on government involvement in or interference with education and schooling that must be respected and observed. Censorship in the form of book banning, prior restraint on the speech and instructional processes of teachers, and rigid and politically motivated control over curricular content are expressly forbidden. Involuntary indoctrination or coercive means to “teach”, instruct, and impose upon students a particular brand or flavor of ideas, beliefs, attitudes, dogma, doctrine, or officially selected materials and content are prohibited in the democratic tradition.
Government must not be the source of the actual “educational” materials and information or data which are utilized in forming the thoughts, attitudes, and opinions of students. Religious, political, and philosophical beliefs and doctrine must not ever have the special or exclusive imprimatur of government or be allowed to creep in under the guise of governmental power and obligation.
The libertarians and various other right-leaning groups and individuals are talking out of both sides of their mouths. They believe that big government should let parents, or the states on their behalf if they are sufficiently reactionary, decide on the controversial issues having to do with education. That is, except when a fanatical and fascistic governor wants to write the entire curriculum and to prescribe what textbooks to use or what should be included in and excluded from textbooks and curricular materials.
Those of us who have a different perspective can point out the contradictions and articulate what we believe and what role we see for government. However, we are not in control of much of anything, we have our own differing conceptualizations relative to education, and it seems impossible to define the parameters or the terms and specifications which could be implemented as guidelines and official rules.
First, we can say definitively that those on the right end of the spectrum clearly have it wrong with regard to what roles government should play and how much input, control, and oversight it should have. Government is not tyrannical unless we allow tyrants to overpower the rule of the people through power plays, inordinate influence on the part of the wealthy and corporations, corruption, and the failure or inability of the people to participate adequately in the decision-making processes. Government should make educational opportunities a top priority because an educated population is the engine of democracy. But government is the tool, not the legitimate authority in this highly personal and private cognitive domain.
Government is of, by, and for the people. WE are the government to the extent we are a democratic republic. Government is not inferior to the “free market”, to business, to technological wizards, or to wealthy individual corporations. Government has the ability, resources, personnel, legal reach and authority, and institutional memory to perform hundreds of roles beyond national security, policing, and traffic management. And, yes, government MUST do whatever it possibly can to support educational endeavors and institutions.
Nevertheless, no one, and least of all government should dictate to teachers, parents, or children how, when, or where they will obtain and achieve education, and no one is or can ever be qualified to determine curriculum as a function of official government policy. Government MUST be neutral where issues, opinions, and the specific content of curricula are concerned.
Once more, the distinction must be emphatically made. School is NOT, I REPEAT, NOT EDUCATION!!!!! Do not take my word for it. Einstein said, “Education is not the learning of facts but the training of the mind to think.” I have a more lengthy and eloquent quote from Einstein which I can’t include here that spells it out more definitively. Traditional schools train the mind to adopt the thinking of others. This is not a difficult or complex distinction. The distinction is primarily qualitative but is also quantifiable to some extent.
On any given day in any given school classroom under optimal conditions for that school, education is likely to be accomplished for only a small fraction of the students present. For any given student in any given time period, including a top performing student such as Thom Hartmann surely was, education occurs during a tiny fraction of that time. The proportion of that student’s education ultimately attributable to school is most probably somewhere in the low single digits, great teachers notwithstanding. And, someone with an exceptional education certainly should not swallow the mythology that credits the school with much more without careful scrutiny. The concept of teaching is more myth than reality, as well.
Government may create schools. Government may fund schools. Government may properly oversee such matters as discriminatory treatment, unequal school resources, protecting teacher, staff, and student civil rights, building safety, health conditions and services, etc., etc. But requiring attendance does NOTHING to guarantee public education or literacy levels, and indeed, defeats those purposes MORE OFTEN THAN NOT.
Requiring attendance requires a panoply of limiting and confining restrictions, prohibitions, intrusions, inappropriate behavioral controls, incessant evaluations and measurements (of unmeasurable and ineffable factors and attributes, such as learning and education), a cumbersome bureaucratic edifice, an authoritarian hierarchy, endless rules, unrealistic policies, and an obsession with accountability, despite no effective means of holding any individual accountable except in the most egregious violations of law or policy. Compulsory attendance is unconstitutional, paternalistic, and counterproductive. Why is it so difficult for intelligent and aware individuals to get their heads around this simple concept?
Where is the logical reasoning or empirical evidence and verification of the boastful claims repeated ad infinitum by school boosters and school officials disproving these obvious truths? It is astonishing that our leaders on the left lack clarity and perspective on these issues.
In a word, Thom, no.
Among Chomsky's observations about "the most dangerous organization in the history of mankind," was one publication of Trump’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a detailed study recommending an end to regulations on emissions.
"It presented a rational argument: extrapolating current trends, by the end of the century we’ll be over the cliff and automotive emissions don’t contribute very much to the catastrophe – the assumption being that everyone is as criminally insane as we are and won’t try to avoid the crisis. In brief, let’s rob while the planet burns, putting poor Nero in the shadows."
According to Chomsky this surely qualifies as a contender for the most evil document in history.
Noam Chomsky Calls Trump and Republican Allies "Criminally Insane" https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/noam-chomsky-calls-trump-and-republican-allies-criminally-insane/