Donald Trump’s Surrogate Presidency

God Bless America is a formidable anthem for Western Democracy! Problem is, someone forgot to tell Members of Congress & the Senate about what justifies good governance for the electorate. Currently, both sides are in an imbroglio over the signature piece of legislation from former President Barrack Obama, that if defeated, stands to leave up to 20 million Americans without health-care. Senator John McCain seemingly resurrected from brain surgery that would make Lazarus proud, entered into the Senate chamber to cast a vote that would  defeat the Republican motion to repeal Obamacare on Thursday, the evening of July 28. McCain crossed the floor of The Senate to cast a strong voice for maintaining coverage for those that would be affected under ‘Trump-Care.” Suffice it to say, there is humility to be gained when a surgeon has their way with you in the past seven days, and with McCain’s help, the motion was defeated.

Now, lost in this malaise is the notion that, at some point, ‘The Donald” is going to get fed up with the legal wrangling of the Presidency (there are a limit to veto’s) and leave this job if he is meant to look like Judas or Jihad. President Trump is not a seasoned politician. Canada had a similar issue with the unexpected election victory of Justin Trudeau, which validated that heredity is indeed important in the corporate boardroom and in political circles. The similarities end between Mr Trump, who has amassed  wealth of approximately 3.5 billion USD  through his ‘Art of the Deal’ exploits and Mr. Trudeau who was born into public office where his father was elected as Prime Minster of Canada when “Flower-Power” and Woodstock were reaching their zenith in North America. Mr Trump who is conditioned to managing his business affairs with a certain amount of moxie, must now be beholden to members of his own Party and Democrats if he hopes to pass any legislation. Trump will surely come to understand the political concepts of ‘log-rolling” and “pork-barrel politics” if he hopes to aspire to accomplish anything note-worthy during his term as President. I mention single term because I do not feel that he can withstand the demands that are necessary to survive as Head of State for American sovereignty in a multi-polar world. Gl0bal conflicts and the financial hang-over from 2008  has spread U.S. interests internationally, both in military matters and economic policy thin, without having lay pen to paper on NAFTA, Mexico’s wall, or a reprise of the ‘Axis – of- Evil” that his predecessor – George W Bush proclaimed for his two term opus in the 2000’s. There is a possibility of impeachment for Trump due to his dealings with Russia along with his personal legal issues relating to taxation and his questionable business ventures such as Trump University. If the log-pile becomes too high, another fare-well aboard Air – Force One may be in the offing, though, I imagine these aren’t the photo ops The Donald had in mind when the U.S. Presidency was a glint in his eye. In the case of Trump going over-board, a very capable replacement in Vice-President Mike Pence exists to steady  a shaky Oval Office that can’t find it’s bearings. As the Triptych of this Air Force One photo illustrates, 1972 is a clarion call to  past & recent  Republican misadventures. Only the names have changed.

What is a government’s responsibility?

The apocalyptic 21st c has carved out  a division on how best to determine the rights and responsibilities of government to their citizens, though, and maybe more crucial,  has been the case of collective security.   Economic matters will always retain their zeal among government in order to campaign for political office or re-election. The founding of the United Nations, the rights and responsibilities of those in affected regions with instability due to counter forces to the ruling elite (see Syria) or simply those factions that are at a crossroads of the many who fall under policy that favour them (see Britain), place a burden on  UN members . The United States has shouldered the burden of collective security starting with The Treaty of Paris in 1898 that shifted independence to Cuba away from Spain and along with that Puerto Rico, The Philippines, and Guam into the American orbit and with that, a stronger sense of colonialism.1

Rightfully, the first order of business for government is the protection of their citizens, those who reside within their borders legally or have business interests that require their presence for extended periods of time (notwithstanding Multi-nationals.) They must be a guarantor of those rights or we have the prospect of opportunities for terrorism such as the incident in 1970 that led to the FLQ  (Front de liberation du Quebec- a French Canadian separatist group)  kidnapping British Trade Commissioner James Cross  in Quebec, Canada. So, we have installed various mechanisms to protect government dignitaries and to a  lesser extent, the average legal citizen.

However, the founding of the United Nations on October 24, 1945 promised a new world order based on “collective security” guaranteed by its members to provide assurances of safety. Great idea and wonderful concept, though, the post WWII global structure weighed heavily on the United States with much less of a role for stalwarts such as the United Kingdom, France and Italy. Germany and Japan had much work in front of them to win back the good graces of the international community and still have work to do to become truly sovereign nation- states apart from American influence. Former Harvard Professor, Samuel Huntington famously spoke of a culture change regarding conflict among humans in “The Clash of Civilisations” in 1996. Huntington could foresee the rise of Islamic fundamentalism born out of the Israeli- Palestine discord that has been festering since the founding of the state of Israel in a Post WW2 world. Staunch allies of Israel among Western powers has given rise to jihad and thrust various groups into the spotlight,most famously or infamously, Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

This notion of collective security then begs the question: what is a government’s responsibility and to whom.

Libertarian’s refer to positive and negative liberty. Negative liberty being characterised as the notion that  I am free as long as I can act unimpeded by other persons while I am pursuing my objectives. If I am interfered with, then I am unfree. In the positive sense of liberty, my decisions are mine alone and not affected by external sources. This sounds good but a bit fishy. In government, we are affected every day by external forces who impose sanctions on us in the form of taxation. In our daily lives,we encounter laws that may affect us in a puerile manner, such as minor infractions like jaywalking, riding a bicycle without a helmet or other regional laws that are devised to protect us from ourselves and other citizens. The notion of immigration can create some unease because jobs are being shifted in this era of globalisation and soft(er) borders. Seats in classrooms are being allocated to international students that create competition among citizens for opportunities in the work-place and colleges that never existed to this extent for past generations, which drive up the cost of tuition. Yes, the benefit is a diverse group of students who bring a  well-rounded palette  of ideas and experiences to the class-rooom and this is invaluable. Ditto for the work-place.


Back to the notion of collective – security, the rise of jihad has spread to Europe and has left many Parisians and European’s lacking “Positive Liberty” which, in turn has forced governments to ramp up efforts to screen individuals or groups that may have designs on terrorist activity. Pivoting back, we might say that America and its allies flubbed the security file in Libya, Iraq and other nation-states that gave a window of opportunity for terrorist’s to enter. Currently, U.S. President Donald Trump is correct in claiming that some nation-states do not pay their fair share for collective security. Yes, the system is a bit convoluted with NATO a surrogate organisation competing for funding in order to do what the UN was designed to do in the first place. NATO was designed as an anti-dote to Eastern Europe and The Warsaw Pact, which itself was designed as a collective security blanket for the (FSU) Former Soviet Union. Along the way, the Allies found the lust for power too appealing once the Berlin Wall fell and with it the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. With that, the West has embroiled Russia over NATO’s incursion into Eastern Europe, while  the U.S. has China in its crosshairs over their inability to curtail North Korea and their pursuit of nuclear proliferation. The recent death of American student, Otto Warmbier begs for a military response to North Korea’s abuse of the 22 year old held in detention. The New World Order is a, pardon the pun, a land-mine of Foreign Policy rationale; hence,  a military operation on the Korean Peninsula might engulf that region in uncertainty and a refugee crisis for China and South Korea will ensue. America, then,  is caught between a rock and a hard place in protecting its mainland from a potential missile strike from North Korea  and placating to Conservative’s who admonish what Senator John McCain referred to as the murder of Otto Warmbier. Can America continue to operate in this version of a collective-security vacuum, without thrusting innocent parties into a global conflict. Is it too late to turn back the clock to a time when nation-states policed themselves, first & foremost. Military budgets be damned, suggest that with the rise of defense spending, the notion of peace-keeping will continue to vary with the Heads of State as well, placating to those naton-states that stimulate our economies with lower priced goods and multi-lateral, historical relationships. But, an attack is an attack on positive and negative freedoms and those that support all forms of democracy. Therin lay a government’s responsibility. Or not.

  1. “1898: The Birth of a Superpower.” Office of the Historian. <>

Groupthink: The tyranny of governing

Groupthink: The tyranny of governing

The developed world has an elaborate, yet contrived way of going about its business regarding governmental affairs in general, and foreign policy, in particular. As I was emailing with a professor in Asia this week, the reality of “Groupthink” a management term that denotes the notion of a team who is all too agreeable towards changes or the status quo of company policy, affects most humans on a daily basis. Sure, “kitchen table” politics help shape who we are and what influences us as individuals through our family and friends; however, in 2017 and with the threat of military conflict staring down the barrel of a gun on the Korean Peninsula, the bedrock of Groupthink is a notion that is strongest in authoritarian nation-states. A cult of personality is obvious in North Korea with the Kim dynasty and in Cuba with the Castro brothers maintaining an iron – grip on the island. China still maintains an identity with their leaders, though, nothing like during the  Mao era. The United States glorifies its Presidents with extravagant inaugurations and during the annual State of the Union Address. So, who holds the most power in their respective bureaus? The American President is constrained by Congress and American allies; authoritarian regimes by lack of resources, China the lone argument as it is the “factory of the world.”

The notion of Groupthink, then, rears its ugly head in various cabinets no matter the ideology. Individual Members of Parliament (Canada etc.) in some cases are permitted to vote with their conscious on various legislation and are held in line by the “Party Whip” on other matters that might bring about the downfall of the government. Is that Democracy or tyranny of the few? In the case of North Korea, Kim Jong – un has shown little tolerance for individuals within his circle who might flinch regarding the direction of his leadership.

In the case of Democracy, not going along to get along may cost you your political life or your station within the Party. In the Authoritarian nation – state, questioning the leadership may cost you your life or years of hard labour. What is the preferred platform is a rhetorical question.

As the U.S.S. Carl Vinson draws near the edge of North Korea, the potential for a miscalculation on the part of North Korean or the United States looms large. The result might be numerous casualties in South Korea followed by a mass exodus of refugees from North Korea into mainland China and South Korea. Yet, if Kim survives, the goal of regime change remains as distant as before any actual conflict that may take place on the Korean peninsula in 2017. Fifty – nine cruise missiles did little to dissuade Assad in Syria. If Kim plans on striking the U.S. or any of its allies in the region, all bets are off on predicting the outcome with an uneasy China deliberating over a potential refugee crisis or the U.S. flexing their military might in South Korea and Japan.

The political game of brinksmanship continues. For now, it is rhetorical and  a potent serum for sustaining power. Stay tuned.

Envocracy in Tibet


Environment and Democratization

Michael Buckley, the Canadian Tibetologist has witnessed the mass deforestation of Tibet where “half the forests of eastern and southern Tibet” have been eviscerated by its Chinese denizens. Buckley continues: “…over 50% of Tibet’s forests have disappeared since  China invaded Tibet” …while “over 50 billion worth of oak, pine, larch, and rhododendron has been logged and hauled out to mainland China.”1 Given the vast amount of resources shipped out of Tibet as Buckley notes, consideration must be accorded to mining, and the loss of employment opportunities to native Tibetans due to the sinicization of Tibet since the occupation. As mentioned earlier, China has invested 100 billion in the region through subsidies, though, it is the present damage and long term consequences of its actions that are difficult to calculate. As Tibet is native to “46,000 glaciers” it has the third largest cluster of ice in the world after the north and south poles, thereby earning the title of Third Pole.

Capitalism is the antecedent economic structure to communism dating back to the Middle Ages in Western Europe. However, as Capitalism has evolved and innovation advanced rapidly, the difficulties associated with technological innovation have laid waste to the environment that protects humans and provides for our sustenance. In the 21st century, particularly in North America and notably in Ontario (including China’s Socialist command economy), the notion of a kleptocracy or envocracy 2 ,within those economic structures is prevalent. Ontario Canada is a good example of a burgeoning envocracy with the provincial government having wasted millions of tax payer dollars on the purported switch from coal to gas powered plants and now a looming carbon-tax. The notion of a kleptocracy in Capitalist states is perhaps a bit pedantic, though the notion of pork-barrel politics lends some credibility to American  and Canadian politics.The strength of a kleptocracy can be found in Russia today as President Putin has amassed large sums through state coffers.Indeed, the Panama Papers suggest that Putin and his associates have benefited from 2 billion through off shore activities. Talk about pork. Yet, to keep those Russian denizens on his side, he annexed Crimea to speak to former Russian pride, real or imagined. So, the reality of politics and the benefits of working within that sphere are unmistakable in cosmopolitan centres, no matter the continent. The basis or crux of this discussion is the effect of China’s occupation of Tibet on its environment and culture. As mentioned above Buckley notes well of China’s plundering of Tibet’s resources for economic gain in China (I don’t consider Tibet part of China, though that it is, is accepted in the international community) and will continue to build rail links and provide employment opportunities for Han Chinese that choose to migrate to Tibet for the vast enjoyment of state benefits at the expense of compromised health due to the high altitude. Instances of women returning to mainland China to complete their pregnancies due to the effects of high altitude difficulties are well documented. One has to be born into these circumstances in order to adjust to the environment. Everest is a prime example where sherpas are employed as guides to those individuals who chose to scale the mountain. Everest has a Nepal side and a Tibet (China) side, so, the economic advantages prevail for both parties. In fact, these same Panama Papers have implicated President Xi and other members of the Politburo for hiding assets in off-shore accounts. Ironically, Xi came into office on the promise to eradicate the graft and prosecute those public officials “capitalizing” on Chinese resources on the mainland or Diaspora. The system is heavily weighted in those command economies or a managed democracy such as Russia’s for mass corruption by public officials.

In order to mitigate against supporting these regimes, the difficult decision to attach conditions reflecting human rights through trade agreements with these states, seems be the only way to catch their attention. Currently, the quagmire of trade and political associations can be found through Brexit and the separation of state from union. No doubt Britain will be ostracized within the EU and will need to forge new trade deals outside of this zone in order to revitalize it’s economy and strengthen their voice once again, in foreign policy decisions. Streaming away from Chinese goods towards Britain and other nation-states without human rights issues provides Canada, in particular, a great opportunity to expand its foreign policy without curry favouring to the UN for a seat on the Security Council, which is long overdue for expansion from a post WW2 club of five permanent members, that remains in this form to the present day. Canada, though still a crown nation-state would do well to create a Department of Collective Security whose sole purpose would be to collaborate with the United Nations P5 in order to find Canada a seat on the UN in a permanent role, alongside the United States. After all, Canada will celebrate its 150th anniversary in 2017. What better way to illustrate to the world a stronger and more  independent Canada, that can flex its foreign policy muscles in order to affect positive change in other parts of the world, including the Near East and Tibet.  In the meantime, consumers ought to purchase American, Canadian or goods from nation-states that pursue freedom of speech as the vanguard of human rights and utilize this as a potential pressure point to work with the Tibetan Government in Exile on a power-sharing doctrine that is meaningful. In this way, the Chinese envocracy can be minimized in Tibet and China, while pushing innovation to protect the environment and the public purse.While China has invested heavily in Tibet, it has taken out more in resources for the mainland while a floating population of  between 150,000 – 200,000  Tibetans have left for larger urban centres in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou to pursue new opportunities, according to CRIENGLISH.COM.3 The traditional Tibetan way of life for centuries has been circumvented due to China’s occupation and oppression. To further illustrate this case, a Chinese work-team surfaced at Larung Gar, the largest Buddhist teaching facility in Tibet on July 20 with heavy equipment to demolish parts of the monastery and academy because they feel overcrowding is an issue, “with only 1,500 monks and 3,500 nuns allowed to live on the site” by October 2017. A student at Larung Gar disputed the authenticity of China’s claims with  overcrowding that already exists in towns and cities across China.4



1.Buckley, Michael. “Meltdown in Tibet.” New York: Palgrave/McMillan. 2014.

2.Kieswetter, Kevin. I define an Envocracy as “a nation-state that advocates democratic principles for its subjects in the realm of the environment; though, eschewing in practise those very elements that underlie good and fair  governance in the name of environmental protection, and/or urbanization.”

3.Zhou Yan and Sun Yang.”Tibetans Leave Home to Seek New Opportunities.” 03.14.2012. 02.07.2016. <>.

4.Demolitions Begin at Larung Gar. freeTibet. 21 July 2016. 28 July 2016. <>.



Fear not the Trump Train…but more guns???

Donald Trump is being vilified in the media and by his fellow Republicans as toxic waste for their hopes to wrest The White House from eight years of Democrat control. Many navel gazers of the Washington political scene have railed against the depth or height of partisan politics on Capitol Hill for generations. One only need to observe The State of the Union Address to see the sanctimony being levied across the floor before a decided line that separates both political parties from heaving insults and other artifacts upon their adversaries. The 2016 SOTU saw Republican House Leader-Paul Ryan, with parched mouth, unable to sit still while President Obama delivered his final speech. Observing Obama’s final address, I realised the Americans got it right with a maximum of two terms per President. Barrack Obama appeared tired from the rancorous debates, and general malaise that goes with being the worlds top- cop. It is fair to note that he inherited an America,easter-storm-2
unlike his predecessor, George W. Bush. The 2008 America was headed for a financial tsunami, and had lost respect among allies for some dubious foreign policy measures; primarily the second Gulf War incursion.

As the Primary season forges ahead, an anomalous political street-fight has created a wedge between those Republican’s that support Donald Trump for the top of the GOP ticket, and everyone else, including Democrats and “soft” Republicans. Trump has come a long way since The Apprentice and has galvanized support as he goes about winning state after state. However, his “take no prisoners” diatribe against his opponents has left the GOP feeling susceptible to the sure-footed eloquence of Hilary Clinton and her ensemble of campaigners, including husband and former President Bill Clinton. For Trump, this is akin to going to a gunfight with a knife. Couple that with Tea-Party’ers and hard Republicans, and success would seem fleeting at the Republican National Convention from July 18-21 never mind upsetting the presumed odds on favourite to win in November, Hillary Rodham Clinton. So, how can Donald Trump assuage the fears of veteran Republican stalwarts like James Baker, a former Secretary of State in the George H W Bush administration, who warned the living world or those with bandwidth aplenty, that a Trump victory would make planet Earth, less safe. The Donald is beginning to see his shadow as he courts members of the GOP faithful, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan to bring support and credibility to his campaign, while measuring his tone to appeal to Independents, the immigrant-vote, and those voters who may be tempted to jump-ship to the Democrats, in November. Trump might consider former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his failed attempt to throw niqab bearing Islamic women under the  bus in the last Canadian election that saw Harper exiled to Dante’s Inferno in Alberta, all references aside.


What might Trump maintain in his toolkit of policies to temper fears of his victory in November?

First, he needs to bring in a moderate to run as Vice-President on his ticket. Former opponent and Ohio Governor John Kasich offers experience with managing deficits and has knowledge of foreign affairs. He is the perfect foil to fears elicited by Democrats, the protest movement, and even The Pope. That Kasich brought forward “The Balanced Budget Act” of 1997 which balanced the federal books for the first time in decades (a strong economy and shrinking military budget did not hurt), plays to his strengths as an administrator and fiscal conservative that Republicans know and trust.  There is a rumour that Newt Gingrich and Trump have had discussions about a political liaison, though, it remains to be seen if the two men and their ego’s could get out of each others way long enough and develop the necessary chemistry to convince voters of their ingenuity and salience to manage the worlds top economy and military. Worries of Trumps’ demagogical approach to immigration and trade can be diminished with a Kasich-Trump ticket, particularly with former leaders like former Mexican President Vicente Fox screaming bloody murder over a fence dividing the border of the two countries. Most American voters would agree with Trump’s countenance to obliterate terrorism, though,at the expense of immigration, will not appease those voters that may be directly or indirectly affected  by restrictions to Islamic migration to America. What better way to stir up a firestorm than annihilating the approximately 6.67 million Muslims living in America.1 With or without the benediction of the Bush family, the Republican Party has found it’s legs under Donald Trump and has a solid chance to form the next government in late November. Should the GOP stumble and face another term in the political wilderness, Marco Rubio is the sexy pick for 2020, and a viable choice for a top job such as Secretary of State, should America turn right this November. In that scenario, Canada can expect an even higher debt load to improve our military and face the wrath of potential tariffs on exports. A Trump America will be bolder like the person, which is not terribly disarming after 8 years of a sedate Democrat administration.

In light of the horrendous events in Orlando, Trump re-iterated his policy of a temporary ban on Muslim immigration. And why not in the heat of an election battle. However, stating that more Americans with more guns would prevent incidents like Orlando and others from happening is asinine.2  A measured approach to immigration and tough legislation 0n firearms sales, sellers, and eligibility to own deadly objects like guns, makes sense. Recent findings by CNN report that the U.S. has 5% of the worlds population and 31% of the worlds mass shootings. 3 For this, I am happy to live in Canada where we have enough gun violence with stringent firearms legislation.





1 “America Muslim Population in 2014.” 14 May 2016. <>.


2.“If you had some guns in that club the night that this took place, if you had guns on the other side, you wouldn’t have had the tragedy that you had. If people in that room had guns with the bullets flying in the opposite direction right at him… right at his head, you wouldn’t have had the same tragedy that you ended up having.” Trump quoted on CNN.

Trump.Donald. “Trump says more guns would have prevented Orlando massacre .” New York Daily News. 13 June 2016. <>.

3.Willingham, A.J. “US home to nearly a third of world’s mass shootings.” CNN. 13 June 2016. <>.


Rhetorical ideas

David_-_The_Death_of_SocratesIn the realm of ‘Classical Conditioning’ introduced by Ivan Pavlov, some observers of Homo sapiens from the Paleolithic era and other species from the animal kingdom, can agree on the manifestation of language, both verbally and physically, that their existence in large part stems from the ability to communicate their needs through cues, or what Umberto Eco described as “overcoding.” Indeed, most of us can appreciate the nuances of visual cues that act as a prelude to what our mind is telling our mouths to utter in defense, in hunger, vocation and in love.

Rhetoric was founded in Greece, says Kennedy, “as an art of persuasion in public address.” The lineage was founded through the sophists and continued through Aristotle to the present day. We can see it expressed as an art through law and its regalia, including a robe and a wig to foment respect, tradition, and quite possibly to intimidate an opponent. It is not the mere words that accentuate the argument; it must, as Shakespeare concluded- “The first thing we do, lets kill all of the lawyers.” Ah, but was the Bard feeling threatened by the optics of law in his own backyard, his own theatre, we might ask. Apparently, old William was bashing administrative justice, fees, and petty lawsuits. The importance and the galvanizing of law through discourse found its orbit through the Sophists, which continues today.

However, most need to see Rhetoric as an art that is expressed in daily communication with our families, our teachers, politicians, and actors and actresses. The art of rhetoric has been expressed through electronic media and was very effective in containing damage by Canadian political parties in the most recent election. The success of the Liberal Party had much to do with the skill of the “spin team” to reassure the electorate that their leader was capable and “ready” to perform the duties of Prime Minister. In this regard, social media and political advertising embodies the spirit of rhetoric, including the logos, kairos, and the agon. The energy and skill of Justin Trudeau in rhetoric regarding his message became effective as he gained confidence throughout his campaign. He economized his energy and his message was skillfully applied in a manner that denied any negativity, while doing precisely what good rhetoricians do: colour the language for personal gain or survival. For the Liberal Party, they not only survived the kairos, they bludgeoned their opponents on to a clear and four-year mandate with little restriction.

Kennedy indicates that there is difficulty in establishing a starting point for Rhetoric, a “genus” as it were, and it would seem Athens is the best that we can do. But, moreover, he extends that Rhetoric is a kind of energy that is fermenting in each one of us before a single syllable is spoken; R is the fuel, words are the fire. Kennedy is not satisfied with semantics and rhetoric; he contends that “rhetorical energy is found in physical actions, facial expressions, and gestures.” Currently, the heated campaign for political office in Canada is pitting one rather dry orator: Stephen Harper against an aspiring neophyte in Justin Trudeau who embodies plenty of energy, moxie, and overcoding to continue a legacy that began with his father, former Prime Minister Pierre and a very skilled rhetorician who once quipped “that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.” And yet, in hindsight government began creeping into our lives on a more expansive level beginning with the Trudeau government, and Justin’s wish to foster that legacy. When watching anybody including ourselves talk, in a mirror or whatever, we can see the a priori energy or the ethos, which demonstrates good character of the speaker, the speakers ability to elicit a response in their audience using empathy- the pathos, and the speakers call to arms or the defense of their argument using logic – the logos. This is precisely how Aristotle summarized the validity of the ‘argument’ through rhetoric.

Kennedy here spends a good bit of time deducing the implications of rhetoric on the animal kingdom. And as Kennedy indicates, animals need to play to develop their conditioning so that they can catch prey, defend themselves, and learn “the communication code and rhetoric of the species.” This is precisely what children are being taught by their folks, friends, and teachers, through the art of rhetoric and discourse, from an early age. Pavlov found that ringing a bell on its own caused his dogs to salivate, a conditioned response. Receiving the skill of rhetoric can induce in humans the tendency to communicate our energy and thoughts in a timely and responsible manner without the use of anaphora. Recently, Michael Richards, a comedian and actor made reference to his outburst at a comedy-club in 2006. Those that know him from television media see his character as easy-going and innocent. Kennedy may find Richard’s personality and station in life at the time of his outburst to mimic the animal kingdom that requires survival instincts and experience. The media scripts rhetoric for public consumption, and in this sense is teaching humans about candor and intimacy. How humans should interact in a manner that can spread out through politics and religion is vested through our priests, political leaders, and family. We’ve all become part of Pavlov’s experiment. Our parents teach us “kitchen-table” political views. My folks would instill as voting other than that of the Liberal Party, anathema-using logos as the motivating element. Rhetoric in this regard becomes cryptic when individuals are cast out of context. Kennedy is correct to indicate government’s use of rhetoric in delivering message to the masses, through, “letteraturizzazione”, though, mainly used in creative writing, has found a voice in contemporary political thought. Modern Propaganda is concerned only with provoking an individual into taking action, as Jacques Ellul described in “The Characteristics of Propaganda.”Consider how humans react to intrinsic and extrinsic events that affect them spiritually, and economically. When we do not understand these issues in our lives, we ask the cosmos for guidance, not unlike the Athenians. Moreover, the process of government is similar, such as Germany and New Zealand that endorse tactical voting. One could argue that, ultimately, the leaders will have their way as Germany’s Merkel stated in 2010 that multiculturalism had failed Germany and in 2015, endorsed the integration of thousands of Syrian refugees, much to the dismay of some Party members.  However, as we have seen in the Canadian political debates, anaphora is the most popular girl at the party.


Chariots of Fire: A Tibetan Historical Perspective

A history of the Tibetan Plateau to the present, with current concerns and potential solutions to China’s occupation. Two covers. of FireN4

Chariots-alternate cover