as long as rights are
defended, foundations of
freedom are secure

In an interview by Kingsley Martin, published in the New Statesman on January 7, 1939, Winston Churchill said:

The essential aspects of democracy are the freedom of the individual, within the framework of laws passed by Parliament, to order his life as he pleases, and the uniform enforcement of tribunals independent of the executive.

The laws are based on Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, the Petition of Right and others.

Without this foundation there can be no freedom or civilisation, anyone being at the mercy of officials and liable to be spied upon and betrayed even in his own home.

As long as these rights are defended, the foundations of freedom are secure.

Mr. Churchill was responding to a question asking if there were any contradictions in a drive to rearm in defense of democracy.

The question was asked as democracy in Great Britain was threatened by the rise of Nazi Germany.

Today we ask the question as the threat is within.

I am not sure that Mr. Churchill could have handled such a thing.

I know I have trouble.

As long as these rights are defended, the foundations of freedom are secure.

Without this foundation there can be no freedom or civilisation, anyone … ANYONE … being at the mercy of officials and liable to be spied upon and betrayed even in his own home.

know they’re dishonest
almost always think there’s a
good reason for it

From the movie, The Big Chill where Michael and Sam discuss life comes this bit of dialogue.

Michael: Nobody thinks they’re a bad person. I’m not even claiming that people always think they’re doing the right thing; they may know that they’re doing something dishonest or insensitive or manipulative but they almost always think that there’s a good reason for doing it. They almost always think it will turn out for the best in the end, even if it just turns out best for them, because by definition what’s best for them is what’s best.

Sam Weber: Why is it what you just said strikes me as a massive rationalization?

Michael: Don’t knock rationalization. Where would we be without it? I don’t know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They’re more important than sex.

Sam Weber: Ah, come on. Nothing’s more important than sex.

Michael: Oh yeah? Ever gone a week without a rationalization?

I first saw this movie 40 years in Ann Arbor at a special screening for film students at the University of Michigan.

I got invited through the luck of just being there.

It was the line on rationalization that I was searching for.

Don’t knock rationalization. Where would we be without it? I don’t know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations.

It stuck in my mind as I seek to explain folks who I know who support the current guy in office.

I tell my wife that for many, its playing the lottery and for the state of their career, they rationalize that if they can get close to this guy, maybe … just maybe when he dies, he might remember them in his will with a nice tip.

You know, like Charles Foster Kane and Jed Leland.

Anyone for where they are in life, cozying up to the that guy is about they best bet they can make for their future financial security so the rationalization that they are selling out their integrity of the present can be justified.

Then I came across the line leading up to the rationalization statement.

Nobody thinks they’re a bad person. I’m not even claiming that people always think they’re doing the right thing; they may know that they’re doing something dishonest or insensitive or manipulative but they almost always think that there’s a good reason for doing it. They almost always think it will turn out for the best in the end, even if it just turns out best for them, because by definition what’s best for them is what’s best.

Read that again, slowly and out loud.

Nobody thinks they’re a bad person.

I’m not even claiming that people always think they’re doing the right thing;

they may know that they’re doing something dishonest or insensitive or manipulative but they almost always think that there’s a good reason for doing it.

They almost always think it will turn out for the best in the end, even if it just turns out best for them, because by definition what’s best for them is what’s best.

Now ask yourself.

How can folks support that guy in office?

Ask them.

They will tell you they are doing the right thing and they have a good reason for it.

this isn’t normal and
markets finally, slowly
waking up to this

Based on the passage from the New York Times Opinion piece, The Vertiginous Novelty of America’s Debt Pile By Adam Tooze where Mr. Tooze writes:

What makes the country unique is that even as the economy hums along and the wealthiest prosper as never before, a party calling itself conservative is actively conspiring to cut the sinews of the fiscal state.

This isn’t normal. And markets are finally, slowly waking up to this fact.

unmistakable …
all in rebuke to rudeness,
aggression, greed

Adapted from the article, In Canada, Charles pushed the boundaries of politics as king. So far, he has gotten away with it, by Martin Kettle, where Mr. Kettle writes: No monarch had bothered to make this trip for nearly 50 years. During that time, however, Canada has transformed itself into a major global power and has decisively slipped its old colonial bonds. Yet Trump’s threat to Canada is such that the country’s prime minister, Mark Carney, judged a summons to Buckingham Palace would send a useful newsworthy signal about its national sovereignty that would help bind the nation while sending a shot across the US president’s bows.

At least as significantly, when seen from Britain, King Charles was happy to oblige. Just as with the speech he delivers at Westminster at the start of a parliamentary session, Tuesday’s in Ottawa will have been scripted by the elected government. But the Ottawa speech had a far looser and more personal format than the Westminster version. This allowed the king to speak words that clearly mattered to him, and by which he will be judged.

Trump was not mentioned by name. Even so, he permeated the speech. The king endorsed Canadian national pride and said democracy, law, pluralism and global trade were on the line. He said Canada’s relationships with Europe would be strengthened and, speaking in French, he said Canada faces challenges unprecedented in the postwar era. He was proud that Canada was “an example to the world in her conduct and values, as a force for good”, and he ended, quoting from the Canadian national anthem, by saying “the true north is indeed strong and free”.

All this is an unmistakable rebuke to Trump’s rudeness, aggression and greed. The words are not neutral but committed. Whether the king sought approval from Keir Starmer for his visit and speech is not clear. His main adviser concerning the visit will have been Carney, who may have liaised with Downing Street. Starmer, committed to engaging with Trump, will have been content to keep his distance. The larger point, however, is that this was a willed act by the king. Charles did not have to travel and did not have to make the speech. But he did both, even while continuing to be treated for cancer.

On June 1, 1785, newly appointed ambassador to Great Britain, John Adams told King George III that he wished to restore “the old good nature and the old good humor between people who, though separated by an ocean and under different governments, have the same language, a similar religion, and kindred blood.”

The King seemed equally moved. “I was the last to consent to separation,’ he told his former subject. But, he added, ‘I have always said, as I say now, that I would be the first to meet the friendship of the United States as an independent power.”

That old good nature and that old good humor is in short supply these days on this side.

Instead the current Government offers rudeness, aggression and greed.

Words that clearly matter to some, and by which they will be judged.