A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Monday, July 25, 2016
Donald
Trump addressed the GOP convention in Cleveland, Ohio, July 21. The
Republican presidential candidate spoke for more than one hour, we broke
it down to less than five minutes. (Deirdra O'Regan/The Washington Post)
By Editorial Board July 22
DONALD J. TRUMP, until now a Republican problem, this week became a challenge the nation must confront and overcome. The real estate tycoon is uniquely unqualified to serve as president, in experience and temperament. He is mounting a campaign of snarl and sneer, not substance. To the extent he has views, they are wrong in their diagnosis of America’s problems and dangerous in their proposed solutions. Mr. Trump’s politics of denigration and division could strain the bonds that have held a diverse nation together. His contempt for constitutional norms might reveal the nation’s two-century-old experiment in checks and balances to be more fragile than we knew.
By Editorial Board July 22DONALD J. TRUMP, until now a Republican problem, this week became a challenge the nation must confront and overcome. The real estate tycoon is uniquely unqualified to serve as president, in experience and temperament. He is mounting a campaign of snarl and sneer, not substance. To the extent he has views, they are wrong in their diagnosis of America’s problems and dangerous in their proposed solutions. Mr. Trump’s politics of denigration and division could strain the bonds that have held a diverse nation together. His contempt for constitutional norms might reveal the nation’s two-century-old experiment in checks and balances to be more fragile than we knew.
Any one of these characteristics would be disqualifying; together, they
make Mr. Trump a peril. We recognize that this is not the usual moment
to make such a statement. In an ordinary election year, we would
acknowledge the Republican nominee, move on to the Democratic convention
and spend the following months, like other voters, evaluating the
candidates’ performance in debates, on the stump and in position papers.
This year we will follow the campaign as always, offering honest views
on all the candidates. But we cannot salute the Republican nominee or
pretend that we might endorse him this fall. A Trump presidency would be
dangerous for the nation and the world.
Why are we so sure? Start with experience. It has been 64 years since a
major party nominated anyone for president who did not have electoral
experience. That experiment turned out pretty well — but Mr. Trump, to
put it mildly, is no Dwight David Eisenhower. Leading the Allied
campaign to liberate Europe from the Nazis required strategic and
political skills of the first order, and Eisenhower — though he liked to
emphasize his common touch as he faced the intellectual Democrat Adlai
Stevenson — was shrewd, diligent, humble and thoughtful.
Donald
Trump painted a dark picture of America during his acceptance speech at
the Republican National Convention, but some of his doomsday stats are
rather dubious. The Post's Fact Checker examined 25 of his key claims. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)
In contrast, there is nothing on Mr. Trump’s résumé to suggest he could function successfully in Washington. He was staked in the family business by a well-to-do father and has pursued a career marked by some real estate successes, some failures andrepeated episodes of saving his own hide while harming people who trusted him. Given his continuing refusal to release his tax returns, breaking with a long bipartisan tradition, it is only reasonable to assume there are aspects of his record even more discreditable than what we know.
In contrast, there is nothing on Mr. Trump’s résumé to suggest he could function successfully in Washington. He was staked in the family business by a well-to-do father and has pursued a career marked by some real estate successes, some failures andrepeated episodes of saving his own hide while harming people who trusted him. Given his continuing refusal to release his tax returns, breaking with a long bipartisan tradition, it is only reasonable to assume there are aspects of his record even more discreditable than what we know.
The lack of experience might be overcome if Mr. Trump saw it as a handicap worth overcoming. But he displays no curiosity, reads no books and
appears to believe he needs no advice. In fact, what makes Mr. Trump so
unusual is his combination of extreme neediness and unbridled
arrogance. He is desperate for affirmation but contemptuous of other
views. He also is contemptuous of fact. Throughout the campaign, he has
unspooled one lie after another — that Muslims in New Jersey celebrated after 9/11, that his tax-cut plan would not worsen the deficit, that he opposed the Iraq War before
it started — and when confronted with contrary evidence, he simply
repeats the lie. It is impossible to know whether he convinces himself
of his own untruths or knows that he is wrong and does not care. It is
also difficult to know which trait would be more frightening in a
commander in chief.
Given his ignorance, it is perhaps not surprising that Mr. Trump offers
no coherence when it comes to policy. In years past, he supported immigration reform, gun control and legal abortion; as candidate, he became a hard-line opponent of all three. Even in the course of the campaign, he has flip-flopped on issues such as whether Muslims should be bannedfrom entering the United States and whether women who have abortions should be punished . Worse than the flip-flops is the absence of any substance in his agenda. Existing trade deals are “stupid,” but Mr. Trump does not say how they could be improved. The Islamic State must be destroyed, but the candidate offers no strategy for doing so. Eleven million undocumented immigrants must be deported, but Mr. Trump does not tell us how he would accomplish this legally or practically.
What the candidate does offer is a series of prejudices and gut feelings, most of them erroneous. Allies are taking advantage of the United States. Immigrants are committing crimes and stealing jobs. Muslims hate America.
In fact, Japan and South Korea are major contributors to an alliance
that has preserved a peace of enormous benefit to Americans. Immigrants
commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans and take jobs that no one else will. Muslims are the primary victims of
Islamist terrorism, and Muslim Americans, including thousands who have
served in the military, are as patriotic as anyone else.
The Trump litany of victimization has resonated with many Americans
whose economic prospects have stagnated. They deserve a serious
champion, and the challenges of inequality and slow wage growth deserve a
serious response. But Mr. Trump has nothing positive to offer, only
scapegoats and dark conspiracy theories. He launched his
campaign by accusing Mexico of sending rapists across the border, and
similar hatefulness has surfaced numerous times in the year since.
In a dangerous world, Mr. Trump speaks blithely of abandoning NATO, encouraging more nations to obtain nuclear weapons and cozying up to
dictators who in fact wish the United States nothing but harm. For
eight years, Republicans have criticized President Obama for
“apologizing” for America and for weakening alliances. Now they put
forward a candidate who mimics the vilest propaganda of authoritarian
adversaries about how terrible the United States is and how unfit it is
to lecture others. He has made clear that he would drop allies without a
second thought. The consequences to global security could be
disastrous.
Most alarming is Mr. Trump’s contempt for the Constitution and the
unwritten democratic norms upon which our system depends. He doesn’t
know what is in the nation’s founding document. When asked by a member
of Congress about Article I, which enumerates congressional powers, the
candidate responded,
“I am going to abide by the Constitution whether it’s number 1, number
2, number 12, number 9.” The charter has seven articles.
Worse, he doesn’t seem to care about its limitations on executive power. He hasthreatened that those who criticize him will suffer when he is president. He has vowed totorture suspected terrorists and bomb their innocent relatives, no matter the illegality of either act. He has vowed to constrict the independent press. He went after a
judge whose rulings angered him, exacerbating his contempt for the
independence of the judiciary by insisting that the judge should be
disqualified because of his Mexican heritage. Mr. Trump has encouraged and
celebrated violence at his rallies. The U.S. democratic system is
strong and has proved resilient when it has been tested before. We have
faith in it. But to elect Mr. Trump would be to knowingly subject it to
threat.
Mr. Trump campaigns by insult and denigration, insinuation and wild accusation: Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy; Hillary Clinton may be guilty of murder; Mr. Obama is a traitor who wants Muslims to attack.
The Republican Party has moved the lunatic fringe onto center stage,
with discourse that renders impossible the kind of substantive debate
upon which any civil democracy depends.
Most responsible Republican leaders know all this to be true; that is
why Mr. Trump had to rely so heavily on testimonials by relatives and
employees during this week’s Republican convention. With one exception (Bob Dole),
the living Republican presidents and presidential nominees of the past
three decades all stayed away. But most current officeholders, even
those who declared Mr. Trump to be an unthinkable choice only months
ago, have lost the courage to speak out.
The party’s failure of judgment leaves the nation’s future where it
belongs, in the hands of voters. Many Americans do not like either
candidate this year . We have criticized the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, in the past and
will do so again when warranted. But we do not believe that she (or the
Libertarian and Green party candidates, for that matter) represents a
threat to the Constitution. Mr. Trump is a unique and present danger.