Fearing "Fear, Itself" -- Terrorism In America

“Everybody is filled with what we sometimes refer to as anticipatory anxiety -- worrying about something that is not currently happening in our lives but could happen. And they are worrying that the randomness of it, which on one hand makes the odds of something happening to them very small, that randomness also makes it possible to happen to them.”

--Alan Hilfer, former chief psychologist at Maimonides Medical Center

in Brooklyn who is now in private practice.

(N.R. Kleinfield. "Fear in the Air, Americans Look Over Their Shoulders."

The New York Times. December 03, 2015.)

The mass shooting in San Bernardino has once again ignited a collective fear of terrorism in America.
Another act of senseless violence has taken the lives of many innocent people. And, at the same time, such terrorist acts exact another heavy price -- a psychological burden. Spreading widespread fear is one of the primary goals of those who perpetrate foreign and domestic terrorism. Anxiety and unconscious fear can be formidable enemies that debilitate the populace.

Terrorism as a method of societal destabilization is more concerned with the perception of reality rather than reality itself. In the wake of London terror attacks, Trauma psychologist Robert R. Butterworth, Ph.D. explained how terror destabilizes society ...

"Thus it’s not surprising that 'Anticipatory Anxiety' -- fear of what one may fantasize could occur as a result of terrorist actions -- can be more psychologically damaging to a society than the actual reality that does unfold. This is why people are not riding the metros, canceling vacations, not flying, or afraid of being assembled in large groups."

(Robert R. Butterworth, Ph.D. "London Attacks Raise Psychological Anticipatory

Anxiety Symptoms." University of the Rockies. July 23, 2005.)

Butterworth said during a period of uncertainty, in a psychological sense, “It’s what we don’t know and fantasize about that can hurt us. The adage, ‘The only fear is fear itself,’ rings true, especially in this case… Fantasy breeds fear.”

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt warned Americans about the Great Depresseion in 1933, he was telling them not to allow their understandable, justified fears to keep them from doing what needed to be done. The exact quote is instructive: “So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself – nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”

(Peter M. Sandman and Jody Lanard. Fear of Fear: "The Role of Fear in Preparedness … and Why It Terrifies Officials." The Peter Sandman Risk Communication Website. 2003.)

Dr. Butterworth adds, “With all the talk and speculation of future terrorist actions involving everything from biological to chemical agents it’s no wonder that the fear of the future can be more unsettling than the trauma and depression resulting from past events.”

The trauma psychologist believes that in order to win this psychological battle of fear it’s important for people not to get swept up in unsubstantiated rumors of doom. Butterworth explains that even after terrorist attacks, people cannot let fear paralyze their lives:

"(It's important) Not to panic and give in to hysteria. The reality is that we’re angry and scared but going to work. Children are nervous but going to school. We’re not hiding in our homes but starting to get back on planes and the stock market has stabilized. — Remembering that the psychological goals of the terrorists were not just to topple our buildings but destroy our way of life.”

As we know, the aim of a terrorist attack is to overwhelm a country's population with terror, and thus achieve organizational and political aims. Sandman and Lanard delineate the difference between fear and terror. They say ...

"Fear is not necessarily terror. This is a conceptual mistake officials routinely make, a mistake they seem terribly attracted to – the embedded, preconscious, erroneous assumption that all fear is one short step removed from panic. Some fear is. Most fear is not...

"When officials express their reluctance about 'unduly frightening people,' they are literally right. The key word here is 'unduly.'  Unduly frightening people is wrong. Duly frightening people is right, and important. The problem is telling the two apart.

"What the research actually shows is that moderate fear is very effective in motivating changes in behavior, as long as people start out insufficiently frightened. Alarming apathetic people isn’t easy, but when accomplished it is an effective way to get them to take precautions. If people are already very frightened, on the other hand, it helps to acknowledge and legitimize their fear, but trying to frighten them further can backfire. And if people are already in denial about the danger, fear appeals can push them deeper into denial.

"The distinction is partly a matter of degree -- 'enough' fear versus 'excessive' fear. Perhaps in addition there are kinds of fear like the kinds of cholesterol -- 'good' fear versus 'bad' fear. But we suspect the key difference is neither the amount of fear nor the kind of fear, but rather people’s ability to bear the fear. Much is known about how to enhance that ability. Among the things that help:

• Give people things to do – action binds anxiety.
• Give people things to decide – decision-making provides more individual control, which makes fear more tolerable.
• Encourage appropriate anger – the desire to get even often trumps the desire to cower.
• Encourage love (and camaraderie) – soldiers, for example, fight for their friends and for their country.
• Provide candid leadership – we get more frightened when our leaders seem to be misleading us.
• Show your own fear and show you can bear it – apparently fearless leaders are little help to a fearful public."

(Peter M. Sandman and Jody Lanard. Fear of Fear: "The Role of Fear in Preparedness … and Why It Terrifies Officials." The Peter Sandman Risk Communication Website. 2003.)

Fighting Terrorism

In reflection of proper actions to combat terrorism, I believe that recognizing fear and justifying it are essential to our democratic existence -- accepting real threats, without reacting in panic or hysteria, is beneficial to bearing anxiety and to maintaining the free, American way of life. At the same time, we must realize that when we allow our perception of reality to rule us and alter our life, we can easily cave into fearing "fear, itself." To a terrorist, this is a "win/win" situation -- an act that takes innocent lives and that creates undue terror and mass anxiety.

Stephen Cox, M.D. and President of the National Anxiety Foundation, expounds on the duty of American citizens in the face of terrorism ...

"Combating this fear is not just desirable. Combating this fear is the duty of each and every citizen. And helping other citizens to fight this fear is the duty of every citizen. Mitigating your fear and alleviating fear in others is your obligation.

"Every time you feel afraid, it should help to think courageous thoughts or calming thoughts. This is not rocket science. If you have ever had a friend who was frightened and you tried to console them, what did you tell them? You didn't agree with them and tell them that whatever dangerous possibility they were afraid of was certain to occur. No, you tried to reassure them that in your opinion they overestimated the actual risk of harm and the situation was not as dangerous as they told themselves it was."

(Stephen Cox. "Terrorism Fear: What You Can Do To Alleviate It?" healthyplace.com. 2015.)

Our national anxiety is not unwarranted. It is real. It is culpable. And, it is becoming more and more troubling. Still, it is up to us, as a resilient nation, to keep it in check as we devise new and better strategies to stop groups like ISIL.

After September 11, 2001, Joseph Himle, Ph.D., an associate director of the anxiety disorders program at the University of Michigan Health Center, said, “Many of the sort of stressors we’re accustomed to we have some degree of control over - we can drive more carefully, we can stay out of a dark alley, we can stop smoking. In this case, it’s harder for us to control the threat we face from terrorism.”

Dr. Himle suggests, even in the face of uncertainty, keeping to our normal routine. Himle says ...

“Work and fun, rest and relaxation all help keep our lives in balance. What can happen during times like these is that we cut back on many of the things we use to balance our lives and help control the stress. We may spend less time with others, we cut back on exercise, we don’t do as many things for fun - we cut back at the very time we need these activities the most.”

(Dr. Joseph Himle. "Dealing With Terrorism Anxiety." Health Resources Publishing. 2003.) 

Bruce M. Hyman, Ph.D. says, "The fact that our present enemy is not a specific entity, but rather a world-wide network of hidden terrorist 'cells,' some inhabiting our own cities, is particularly unnerving." But, keeping our sense of risk in proper perspective is paramount to dealing with this situation. Hyman suggests managing anxiety by "gaining control by thinking, not just reacting" and "finding something positive you can do" like giving blood, getting a flu shot, and setting up a safe room in your home.

Fear, uncertainty, and vigilance in the face of our nation’s international war on terrorism can reek havoc on nervous individuals who, in a sense, already live every day of their lives as if they were in a “war zone.” The challenge we face is not to perceive reality with debilitating terror, but instead, to live our lives freely as we take meaningful measures to defeat those mission is to instill widespread anxiety.

“The spirit of democracy cannot be established in the midst of terrorism, whether governmental or popular.”

--Mohandas Gandhi

Gun-Free Zones -- Safe, Unsafe, Unsure?

The choruses resound:

“Gun-free zones prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves!"
"Gun-free zones make people less safe by inviting criminals into target-rich, no-risk environments!"
"Shootings are more likely to occur in gun-free zones!"
"Gun-free zones are places where people go to die!"

You can choose your source for statistics to support (a) the need to repeal gun-free zones for reasons of self-defense, or (b) the need to maintain gun-free zones for the maintenance of public safety. You can debate good points on either side until work yourself into a lather of righteous acclamation.

But, you cannot deny more guns and access to more guns (no matter the zone) are NOT answers to stopping the horrible reality of increased gun violence.

Got Guns? You Bet.

Although there is no perfect estimate for the number of firearms in the United States, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives estimates there are about 300 millions guns in the United States (2013).

“The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high, upwards of 300 million, and now rises by about 10 million per year,” said the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action in a firearms safety fact sheet released January 17, 2013.

A November 2012 report titled “Gun Control Legislation” from the Congressional Research Service also supports that number, though ranks it a bit higher. As of 2009, the report states, “the estimated total number of firearms available to civilians in the United States had increased to approximately 310 million: 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns.”

(Michael Long. "How Many Guns In The United States?" gunfaq.org. March 07, 2013.)

Where does the U.S. rank in the world according to the number of firearms? With less than 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States is home to 35-50 percent of the world’s civilian-owned guns,” according to the Small Arms Survey.

Back in 2012, Bloomberg predicted by 2015, "firearm fatalities will probably exceed traffic fatalities for the first time." In the article then, Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, said, "We’ve made policy decisions that have had the impact of making the widest array of firearms available to the widest array of people under the widest array of conditions.” While fewer households have guns, people who own guns are buying more of them, he said.

(Chris Christoff and Ilan Kolet. "American Gun Deaths to Exceed Traffic Fatalities by 2015. Bloomberg Business. December 19, 2012.)     

And, now, according to a Center for American Progress report, this year (2015) gun deaths are expected to surpass car deaths. The report cites CDC data that shows guns will kill more Americans under 25 than cars in 2015. Already more than a quarter of the teenagers -- 15 years old and up -- who die of injuries in the United States are killed in gun-related incidents, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

What does this say about America's ongoing obsession with guns and its relationship with gun violence?

Adrienne LaFrance, senior associate editor at The Atlantic, relates how difficult finding definitive statistics on guns and gun violence can be. She says ...

"Gun deaths can include suicides, homicides, accidental firearms discharges, and even legal killings—but the overall data picture is incomplete. Since 2008, some county-level deaths have been left out to avoid inadvertent privacy breaches. And the number of police shootings—including arrest-related deaths, which are recorded but not made public, according to The Washington Post -- are notoriously evasive.

"The record of firearm deaths in the United States is murkier still because of how much is at stake politically. Firearm safety remains one of the most divisive issues in the country, with advocates on both sides cherry-picking data to support arguments about the extent to which gun regulation is necessary.

"It's not even clear how many guns are out there in the first place, as the Pew Research Center pointed out in a 2013 study: 'Respondent error or misstatement in surveys about gun ownership is a widely acknowledged concern of researchers. People may be reluctant to disclose ownership, especially if they are concerned that there may be future restrictions on gun possession or if they acquired their firearms illegally.'"

(Adrienne LaFrance. "America's Top Killing Machine." The Atlantic. January 12, 2015.)

So, legal and illegal firearms are currently present in great numbers. They are, as I write, being toted into public zones -- both gun friendly spaces and gun-free areas. You never know who has a concealed weapon they wish to use for defense or for criminal intent, and you can never be sure who will openly defy laws and humanity and choose to use automatic long guns, handguns, and other firearms to reek havoc on innocent victims.

Until we take the equation of "terror" out of occupying workspaces, schools, shopping areas, and, indeed, out of being in all public places, we will have millions and millions of guns in the hands of those who believe those firearms will save their lives. I am not speaking about guns used for hunting, target practice, or castle protection. I am talking about guns whose sole purpose is to stop terror in public.

The firearm has become an instrument believed by many to be a surefire means of deterring and stopping terror. It cannot be denied that is true in many cases. And, believers want to express their rights freely and legally carry their weapons anywhere.

But ...

This survivalist mode affects the daily lives of peaceful Americans in many ways that may also be detrimental to society. True, no one can predict all outbreaks of gun violence, yet condoning free carrying in zones like schools, churches, or hospitals, where we KNOW a gun on everyone weakens our faith and trust to the point that we fear others in our most sacred institutions is terrorism achieved.

Be it the terrorist, the mentally ill individual, the psychopath, or the gang member -- it is frightening to think about the continued escalation of gun violence, but also it is equally alarming to see those who would readily accept the mentality of "blow them all away and sort them out later" as the best means to preserving life. In a false survival mode, there are plenty who might fire at the mere perception of anyone who looks threatening.

In America we are taught to love bastions of sanctuary, to respect nonviolent behavior, to use force only as a last resort. The solution to gun violence ultimately depends upon one gun-free zone, not  thousands of politically or governmentally designated areas where guns are not permitted, but instead an entire country that refuses to carry to kill other human beings. That one zone spans sea to sea.

You say this Libtard is just promoting a crazy dream. To which I say no positive reality can begin with a terrified finger on the trigger of a firearm. How could anyone not dream for an end to terror and a safe existence in public places where guns are not used in violence? Right now this seems like an impossible, insane goal. Nonetheless, all goals begin with a dream and a vision.

I know more innocent people are going to die in gun-free zones. I also know this will occur despite the 11.1 million (2014) well-intentioned citizens carrying firearms in the country. America has a gun violence problem that must be addressed -- not by one segment of the population, but by all segments of the population. President Obama said while many Americans see the prevalence of mass shootings and feel that there's nothing an individual can do, "we all have a part to play" when it comes to reducing gun violence. I agree.

Petition to End the Dickey Amendment and Research Gun Violence

The Dickey Amendment, a 20-year-old law banning any scientific research on gun violence, has been supported by the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun lobbyists. Back when the aptly named "Dickey Amendment" was tacked onto a 1996 appropriations bill, Representative Jay Dickey of Arkansas had argued that CDC research would push policies that would infringe on American's Second Amendment rights.

This Amendment has effectively silenced researchers at both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) for conducting any comprehensive studies on what causes violence -- and what can be done to prevent it -- since 1996. As expected, it’s left public health experts and policymakers with little to lean on as they attempt to craft new legislation to help quell the fatal trend.

In light of the legislation, the CDC has refrained from engaging in research related to gun violence, even when called upon by President Obama to do so following the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, in order to avoid losing funding. As a result, gun violence research has been largely left undone and the unchecked violence has cost the United States $229 billion annually, according to a Mother Jones report.

Yet, yesterday doctors began a dedicated movement to change all of that.

In a December 2 press conference, led by the group Doctors for America and joined by a handful of Democratic lawmakers, doctors presented a petition signed by more than 2,000 physicians in all 50 states to Congress requesting an end to the restriction. The doctors there spoke about the need to view gun violence as a public health epidemic and research ways to solve it just as the country would with any disease causing the deaths of thousands of Americans each year.

The event ended just a few hours before news broke of the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California.

“Using emotions and belief systems to address policy is a bad idea and is going to get us nowhere. So to develop effective policy we must conduct evidence-based research,” said Dr. David Berman, a physician from St. Petersburg, Florida, who spoke at the press conference. “Common sense dictates we need to do something about this.”

“Gun violence is a public health problem that kills 90 Americans a day,” reported Dr Alice Chen, executive director of the lobby group Doctors for America. “Physicians believe it’s time to lift this effective ban and fund the research needed to save lives. We urge Congress to put patients over politics to help find solutions to our nation’s gun violence crisis.”

(Sabrina Siddiqui. "Doctors' groups join Democrats to end ban on gun violence

research funding." The Guardian. December 02, 2015.) 

Even Dickey, the former congressman, who lent his name to the initial amendment, has publicly expressed his regret for backing the bill. He lent his support to Wednesday’s press conference by sending a letter to Representative Mike Thompson, chair of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, to read at the event.

In his letter, Dickey wrote ...


"It is my position that somehow or someway we should slowly but methodically fund such research until a solution is reached. Doing nothing is no longer an acceptable solution... Research could have been continued on gun violence without infringing on the rights of gun owners, in the same fashion that the highway industry continued its research without eliminating the automobile."

Thompson said, "I commend Jay Dickey for taking this stand."

(Jelani James. "Jay Dickey: Gun Violence Research Gag Order Should Be Reversed."

hngn.com. December 03, 2015.)

Rep. David Price, vice chair to the House of Representatives’ Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, says ...

“Gun violence is among the most difficult public health challenges we face as a country, but because of the deeply misguided ban on research, we know very little about it. Regardless of where we stand in the debate over gun violence, we should all be able to agree that this debate should be informed by objective data and robust scientific research.”

(Alex Zielinski. "Physicians Demand End To 20-Year-Old Ban On Gun Violence Research." thinkprogress.org. December 02, 2015.)

Dr. Nina Agrawal, who’s been a pediatrician in the South Bronx, agrees ...

“It’s disappointing to me that we’ve made little progress in the past 20 years in finding solutions to gun violence. In my career, I’ve seen children lives saved from measles, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, motor vehicle accidents…because of federal scientific data and research. It’s frustrating that the CDC is not permitted to do the same type of research for gun violence."

(Alex Zielinski. "Physicians Demand End To 20-Year-Old Ban On Gun Violence Research." thinkprogress.org. December 02, 2015.)

GOP leaders have tried to make gun violence an issue that requires mental health research, despite the fact that less than 3 percent of U.S. crimes involve someone with a mental illness. And the most recent argument against CDC-funded research is that “a gun is not a disease” -- even though the CDC has been researching motor vehicles, natural disasters, poor ventilation systems, and many other topics that wouldn’t be labeled a disease for years. The politicians behind these arguments have yet to suggest simply allocating money to another government agency.

“Politicians have put a gag order on public health research for gun violence only to score political points,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, who also spoke at the event. “On public health matters, it’s critical we listen to doctors — not politicians.”

Proclamation and Petition of the Doctors For America

"As physicians, we are outraged that this Nation continues to lose innocent lives from daily gun violence. Despite Sandy Hook and the continued tragedies since then, more than 89 Americans continue to die every day from gun violence.

"You would be shocked to know that nearly 20 years ago Congress, under intense pressure from the gun lobby, passed a law blocking the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institute of Health (NIH) from carrying out the necessary research to better understand how to prevent gun violence.

"Most recently, in June 2015, the U.S. House Appropriations Committee voted to maintain this funding ban. The result: a significant source of funding for evidence-based, scientific research into the causes of gun violence was blocked entirely, and a signal was sent to the entire scientific funding community that chilled almost all other outside research into this critical issue.

"It's time to end the ban on CDC and NIH research so we can find solutions to the gun violence crisis.

"Federal scientific data has driven policy to save lives from motor vehicle accidents, sudden infant death syndrome, lead poisoning, and countless other public health crises. It’s time to do the same with gun violence."

(Nina Agrawal, M.D. "Tell Congress: End the Ban on Gun Research."

Doctors For America. November 10, 2015.)  

Here is the wording of the petition and the site for health care workers to join the fight:

To Members of Congress:

Research is crucial to saving lives. Scientific data has saved lives from motor vehicle accidents, sudden infant death syndrome, lead poisoning, and countless other threats to people's health.

Gun violence is a public health problem that kills 90 Americans a day. It's time to put patients over politics. 

Lift the CDC gun research ban and fund the research we need to save lives.

Click here: http://act.drsforamerica.org/sign/end-cdc-ban/#.VjpXSrerQdV.

Voicing the Need For Gun Violence Research

Some will say the Doctors For America press conference and the plea for research on American gun violence had no relation whatsoever to the mass shooting in San Bernardino because many media officials suspect that tragedy to be a well-planned terrorist act. However, gun violence in America is widely defined as "violence committed with the use of a gun (firearm or small arm)." Included in this subject are statistics regarding military or para-military activities, as well as the actions of civilians.

Gun violence may or may not be considered criminal. Non-criminal gun violence may include accidental or unintentional injury or death.

Criminal gun violence like that yesterday in San Bernardino includes homicide (except when and where ruled justifiable), assault with a deadly weapon, and suicide, or attempted suicide, depending on the jurisdiction.

Foreign terrorism, domestic terrorism, mass murder -- all criminal gun violence must be addressed as waves of horrible tragedies rock our country. The bullets, the extended magazines, the handguns, the long-rifles, the automatic assault weapons, the perpetrators, the victims -- so many areas of concern exist that prompt, methodical, unbiased research on gun violence must be begun.

Now it is imperative that Congress must react to those who deal with the bloody, mangled aftermath of maniacs who shoot round after round into innocent victims to appease their evil desires -- the doctors who fight so desperately to save victims of such unspeakable tragedies. I urge the health community to support the petition today.

Ted Cruz: Democrats Cause Criminal Violence In Party With 'No Room For Christians'

Politically divisive tactics -- most politicians relish every opportunity to create lines of demarcation against opponents. Some very unscrupulous candidates do so repeatedly to draw attention, no matter how ridiculous their claims or how incredibly vile their accusations. Some say it's just "politics as usual," yet the GOP seems to be taking the strategy of partisan blame to new heights with presidential candidates like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

The latest chapter of mudslinging by Cruz targets the entire Democrat party. By the way, In 2012, Gallup reported an average of 47% of Americans identified themselves as Democrats or said they were independents who leaned Democratic (42% identified as or leaned Republican). Yet, Ted Cruz recently claimed Democrats must take the blame for American criminal violence.

On November 30 on the "Hugh Hewitt Show," Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said that most violent criminals also identify as Democrats. Cruz explained ...

“Here is the simple and undeniable fact – the overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats. There is a reason why for years the Democrats have been viewed as soft on crime. They go in and appoint to the bench judges who release violent criminals."

Cruz continued ...

“They (Democrats) go in and fight to give the right to vote to convicted felons. Why? The Democrats know that convicted felons tend to vote Democrat. The media never reports on any of that. [It] doesn’t want to admit any of that.”

Cruz then argued that the mainstream media often tries linking violent crime with the GOP, even when such ties are nonexistent. He said ...

“Every time you have some sort of violent crime or mass killing you can almost see the media salivating, hoping, hoping desperately that the murderer happens to be a Republican so that they can use it to try and paint their political enemies. You can see that every time there’s a terrible crime they’re so excited – ‘come on, please be a Republican so we can try and paint the other side.' It is one of the more egregious examples of media bias and something we see over and over again."

(Mark Hensch. "Cruz: Most violent criminals are Democrats."

MSN News. November 30, 2015.)

America must question both Cruz's stand and his logical support. Dr. Eric Ostermeier, research associate at the Humphrey School’s Center for the Study of Politics and Governance, must certainly think so. In fact, the 2008 Uniform Crime Reports came to this conclusion:

"The average violent crime rate (murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault) in 2008 for the 28 states that voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential election was 389 incidents per 100,000 residents. The average violent crime rate for the 22 states that voted for John McCain was 412 incidents per 100,000 residents – or a 5.8 percent higher incidence of violent crime."


The red state/blue state crime data split also holds true across other measures of statewide partisan groupings.

"For example, a Smart Politics analysis of partisan control of state legislatures finds the 27 states with Democratic-controlled legislatures with an average violent crime rate of 390 incidents per 100,000 residents. The average violent crime rate for the 14 states with Republican-controlled legislatures was 11.1 percent higher, at 433 incidents per 100,000 residents. (The rate was lowest among eight states with split partisan control – at 382)."

 (Dr. Eric Ostermeier. "Red States Have Higher Crime Rates Than Blue States."

Smart Politics. September 16, 2009.)

One thing is for certain: 2008 Uniform Crime Reports is not an aberration. Ostermeier reports ...

"Looking back to the 2004 Presidential election, the 19 states that voted for Democrat John Kerry had an average violent crime rate in 2004 of 361 incidents per 100,000 residents. The 31 states that voted for George W. Bush had an average violent crime rate that year of 419 incidents per 100,000 residents – or a 16.3 percent higher rate. Bush states also had an 18.6 percent higher rate of property crimes in 2004 (3,648 incidents per 100,000 residents) than the Kerry states (3,077)."

This is not the first time Cruz has blamed Democrats for crime. Cruz (whose father hails from Cuba) has also stated that Senate Democrats have worked to protect immigrants with criminal records because they are “willing to stand in pure party line vote” in support of releasing undocumented immigrants who are “murderers and rapists” to protect the president.

“The Democrats are getting more and more open that they are the party of illegal immigration,” he said during an interview with Iowa radio host Simon Conway. “They support amnesty. They support releasing criminal illegal aliens.”

(Cristina Silva. "Ted Cruz Calls Latinos 'Violent Criminal Illegal Aliens,' Slams Democrats For Protecting Immigrants." International Business Times. October 13, 2015.)

In the wake of the recent Planned Parenthood tragedy in Colorado Springs, Cruz has taken yet another opportunity to extend his extreme divisiveness. One might conclude his motives for speaking out are not only rooted in uncompromising Republican ideals but also in overly rigid religious tenants.

Consider that on April 25, 2015, while speaking in Waukee, Iowa, Cruz argued that Democrats have become so extreme and "intolerant" of religious views that "there is no room for Christians in today's Democratic Party." Cruz said, "There is a liberal fascism that is dedicated to going after believing Christians who follow the biblical teaching on marriage."

(Ashley Killough. "Ted Cruz: Democratic Party home to 'liberal fascism' against Christians."

CNN. April 26, 2015.)

And, during a speech at the National Right to Life convention in 2013, Cruz said Democrats in the Senate don’t really care that abortionists like Kermit Gosnell kill babies in what is essentially infanticide.

(Steven Ertelt. "Ted Cruz Tells Pro-Life Convention: Democrats Don’t Care About Infanticide. lifenews.com. June 28, 2013.)

Rep. Peter King, a senior member of both the Homeland Security and Intelligence committees, called Senator Ted Cruz a "big mouth" who "basically led the Republican Party over the cliff." The New York Republican told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview on "The Situation Room, "To me, he's a guy with a big mouth and no results." King continued ...

"We have very, very complex issues facing the country today, and he goes out of his way to oversimplify. Ted Cruz may be an intelligent person, but he doesn't carry out an intelligent debate. He oversimplifies, he exaggerates ... he doesn't provide leadership and he has no real experience."

Referring to a Cruz 2013 speech that lasted more than 20 hours on the Senate floor, as Cruz railed against Obamacare, King said, "Shutting down the federal government and reading Dr. Seuss on the Senate floor are the marks of a carnival barker not the leader of the free world."

The Cruz message can be summed up with little effort: "All Democrats are bad, anti-Christian, crime-enabling, baby-killing fascists. All Cruz-devoted Republicans are good, God-fearing, lawful, right-to-life patriots. Does he simplify issues and paint people with broad strokes of overgeneralization while vilifying his opponents with extremely divisive methods? I think so. I also think Senator Cruz seems like an ideal presidential candidate for those who favor gridlock and partisan politics. And, the Cruz choir can be heard raising a loud, unyielding "Amen!"

"Chicken" Nuggets or "Greasy, Grimey Parts"?

It's December and the Nugget War has broken out in America. Most likely you've seen the Burger King commercials touting 10 "nuggets" for $1.49. At 15 cents per nugget, about half that item’s regular price of $2.99, according to Bloomberg, the price is also cheaper than the rate that McDonald’s sells its 50-piece chicken McNuggets at ($9.99 for 50 or 20 cents per nugget).

An unbelievable deal for chicken, right? Well, not so fast. My inquisitive and astute brother told me to investigate why the name "chicken nuggets" wasn't an accurate description of Burger King's colossal menu deal.

BK advertises the chicken product like this ...

"Made with white meat, our bite-sized Chicken Nuggets are tender and juicy on the inside and crispy on the outside. Coated in a homestyle seasoned breading, they are perfect for dipping in any of our delicious dipping sauces."

Any, I want to be clear about any potential accusations here. Maria Gody, Senior editor/host of James Beard-award winning blog "The Salt," says ...

"Burger King says its nuggets are made with 'premium white meat,' McDonald's boasts 'USDA-inspected white meat,' KFC touts 'premium, 100% breast meat,' and Chick-Fil-A declares its nuggets are 'all breast meat.'"

(Maria Godoy. "What's In That Chicken Nugget? Maybe You Don't Want To Know."

The Salt. npr.org. October 12, 2013.)

But ...

A recent paper (2013) published online by The American Journal of Medicine looked at two nuggets from two different, unidentified (for obvious reasons) national fast food chains: Each was comprised of just 50 percent or less muscle tissue, which is what we typically define as chicken, Reuters reported. The rest of the pair of nuggets was made up of a hodgepodge of pure fat, blood vessels, ground bone, nerves and cartilage. The latter is usually stuff that ends up in dog food.

"What has happened is that some companies have chosen to use an artificial mixture of chicken parts rather than low-fat chicken white meat, batter it up and fry it and still call it chicken," lead author Dr. Richard D. deShazo, of the University of Mississippi Medical Center, told Reuters Health. "It is really a chicken by-product high in calories, salt, sugar and fat that is a very unhealthy choice."

(Laura Schocker. "What's Really Inside a Chicken Nugget?"

The Huffington Post. October 30, 2013.)

Dr. deShazo says ...

"Our sampling shows that some commercially available chicken nuggets are actually fat nuggets. Their name is a misnomer." 

The chicken nuggets the researchers looked at were a "poor source of proteins" with limited nutritional value.

(Maria Godoy. "What's In That Chicken Nugget? Maybe You Don't Want To Know."

The Salt. npr.org. October 12, 2013.)

Are the popular nuggets fast food restaurants peddle comprised of white, chicken breast meat, or grey chicken ground into a slurry and poured into molds? You decide. I'm just reporting the news.

Even the seemingly "yucky" chicken parts, themselves, probably aren't harmful says Richard Prayson, M.D., section head of Cleveland Clinic's Department of Anatomic Pathology. Yet, he states, "Chemical additives and preservatives are potentially the issue."

In another study, David Katz, M.D., founding director of Yale University's Prevention Research Center and author of the book Disease Proof, surveyed four fast food companies' nuggets and discovered additives and preservatives were numerous, to say the least. Among those ingredients (generally recognized as "safe" by the FDA but not necessarily proven "unsafe") Katz found were the following:

* Dimethylpolysiloxane, an anti-foaming agent also used in Silly Putty 
* Propylene glycol, a chemical found in antifreeze

Katz speaks about so-called "safe" ingredients the vague, catch-all term "artificial ingredients" ...

"If something is clearly not the way it ought to be, assume potential harm until it's proven to be safe. I would invoke the precautionary principle and say that something that sounds dubious should be considered harmful... If it's not a native part of the food supply, I wouldn't eat it.

"Artificial ingredients' are not really food at all, so they are inevitably a bad idea, adding that this doesn't mean 'natural ingredients' are healthy, either. 'Natural 'doesn't mean good for us; pure lard is natural. (And sometimes 'natural ingredients' aren't what most anyone would consider edible.)"

(Laura Schocker. "What's Really Inside a Chicken Nugget?"

The Huffington Post. October 30, 2013.)

And, of course, nugget studies show the product to be disturbingly high in sugar and sodium.

In defense of nuggets, the National Chicken Council has issued a statement that says you can't really make "scientifically justifiable" inferences "about an entire product category given a sample size of two" (referring to the work of Dr. deShazo).

The Council claims ...

"Chicken nuggets tend to have an elevated fat content because they are breaded and fried. But it's no secret what is in a chicken nugget — most quick service restaurants have nutritional information posted in the store or on their Website, noting that nuggets sold in grocery stores also list a complete nutritional profile."

DeShazo agrees that not all chicken nuggets are created equal. Some grilled or baked ones may be much better. The goal, he says, is to get people to read and understand food labels.

To Nugget or Not To Nugget?

Doesn't some simple common sense lead consumers to logical conclusions about just what nuggets are? I mean, any thrifty grocery shopper knows the best parts of a chicken are more expensive than the low menu price of fast-food nuggets would allow. If a combination of ingredients -- meat parts, additives, and preservatives -- are staring you in the fact for the price of 15 cents a nugget, chances are claims of "pure meat delight" are cackles of puffery. If you're "chicken," just pass, or else eat those mysterious, perfectly formed nuggets at your own risk and don't consider the composition.

On the other hand, you probably don't want to know what is on the inside of that ballpark favorite, the Great American Hot Dog either. How can anyone attend a game without eating at least one of those glorious tube steaks? I know I can't, and I realize hot dogs are just junk food. Yet, people consume dogs as if they are a great delicacy. Go to a Columbus Clippers "Dime-a-Dog" night and watch thousands of hungry fans eat them by the armload ... smiling all the while they swallow the cheap fare.

Mystery meat surprises abound. And, most everyone has at least one favorite. Hell, I'm still wondering what's really in a White Castle slider. No, I'm not -- just give me a dozen and watch me feast while tossing those little boxes aside.

Also, I remember the high school cafeteria serving what they called "Salisbury steak," which came in the form of a circular, thin patty that absolutely defied being cut into pieces with a spork. Most students would simple spear the middle of the meat and eat it from the outside in. A challenge to eat in any mannerly way, the "steak" (which in no way contained the slightest particle of any steak cut known to man), earned the well-deserved title of the "Official Problem-Solving Meal" for its resistance to human consummation.

I know the next time I do eat a nugget, I'll wonder about what the heck it is made of ... but I'll still most likely drown it in one of those assorted dipping sauces and throw the sucker into my mouth. At least, my skinflint mind will rest easy with the meager price paid for the bargain meal even if my stomach does not. Bon appetit. What do you expect for chicken feed?

"Enough Is Enough" -- Gun Violence Again and Again

On November 27, 2015, Robert Lewis Dear, a 57-year-old man from North Carolina, burst into a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs and opened fire, launching several gun battles and an hours-long standoff with police as patients and staff took cover under furniture and inside locked rooms. By the time the shooter surrendered, three people had been killed -- including a police officer -- and nine others were wounded.

And, so, once again, America has suffered a horrible tragedy at the hands of a maniac with a gun. And, in the bloody aftermath, once again, President Barack Obama pleaded, "The United States has to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them. Period. Enough is enough."

Of course, the gun lobby will fire up the usual arguments in unyielding defense of their Second Amendment rights all the while declaring gun control proponents are out to take their guns away.

Once more, we will hear gun advocates repeating familiar refrains: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" and "Murderers can commit heinous acts just as easily with other weapons of choice such as knives."

And, naturally, the NRA will continue to blame those who support gun control for overreacting to the "means" and not centering on the perpetrators of crime.

So, most likely, the national debate on violent gun crime will intensify until enough time passes that allows the issue to return to "simmer" without reform until the next mass shooting reignites the argument.

I, for one, agree with President Obama. Enough is enough. Citizens and lawmakers can no longer ignore the obvious truth. America must make a sea change -- a profound transformation -- to help stop gun violence. We have chosen to make many other sea changes about deadly threats to public safety such as drunken driving, drug abuse, and cigarette smoking. It is past time to face the facts. The killing fields of gun violence are teeming with innocent victims whose spirits beg for needed reform.

We must no longer accept mass murders by guns as things that are just "bound to happen." It is imperative that the gun lobby and the gun control advocates and, yes, the NRA, work together with the aid of recent research to compromise and pass new legislation that will evoke a new, much-needed change that transforms the American culture from a group of people that sees gun violence as routine to a united force that is willing to overhaul gun legislation.

Support

A recent study by Harvard Medical School and School of Public Health, in conjunction with Boston Children’s Hospital, provides evidence that stricter gun control laws work in reducing gun-related homicides and suicides.

States with stronger gun laws experienced significantly lower levels of deaths involving firearms than their counterparts with loose gun laws. 

The strong correlations between firearm laws and homicide and suicide rates are definitely new talking points for gun control advocates. Further, opponents of gun control have often used the argument that the effectiveness of gun control laws has not been proven. This study, if followed by others, may take away this line of reasoning.

The study, by researchers at Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Harvard School of Public Health, uses a measure of state-by-state "legislative strength" of gun control policies tracked by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, including measures to:

(1) curb firearm trafficking;
(2) strengthen background checks on purchasers of firearms beyond those required by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act;
(3) ensure child safety;
(4) ban military style assault weapons; and
(5) restrict guns in public places.

It conducted a detailed statistical analysis (via a clustered Poisson regression) to examine the effect gun control laws on firearms fatalities.

Gun-related deaths were measured per 100,000 people for both homicides and suicides based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, controlling for other factors thought to be associated with gun deaths including age, sex, race and ethnicity, poverty, unemployment, college education, population density, other violence-related deaths, and firearm ownership.

In addition to the general relationship between gun safety laws and firearm deaths, the paper also suggests that increasing the number of gun safety laws increases the reductions in firearm related deaths. So the benefits just get bigger with more laws.

The authors also identify background checks as the most important type of law. And while gun rights groups have already come out in force to criticize the study's methods and lack of cause and effect conclusions, he adds that "the authors are very careful in specifying their models and have done as rigorous a paper as possible with existing data."

(Eric W. Fleegler, MD, MPH; Lois K. Lee, MD, MPH; Michael C. Monuteaux, ScD; David Hemenway, PhD; Rebekah Mannix, MD, MPH. "Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States." JAMA Internal Medicine; 173(9). 2013.)

The shock and heartbreak of gun violence tear the very fabric of domestic tranquility in the nation as shooting after shooting kills innocent Americans who merely want to practice peacefully their guaranteed pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Mayhem, tragedy, and murder -- these are the all-too frequent outcomes perpetrated by the angry, the insane, an the quick-tempered who pick up a gun and use bullets to satiate their evil desires.

Let us consider the absolute irresponsibility of continuing to ignore seeking real and lasting solutions to gun violence. Simply letting gun control be a frequently debated, hot-button issue without actually committing to the necessary work and compromise needed to correct the causes of the violence is turning a blind eye to mass murder.

Those on both sides of the issue of gun control can agree upon one basic tenant: Law-abiding citizens must be protected from those who mean to take their lives with bullets. It is paramount that the needless killing stops, no matter that both groups have lobbied Congress for decades to craft legislation in their respective favors. I encourage lawmakers to throw out their unyielding attitudes and help forge a new, better gun mentality.

Continued madness from elected officials that may contribute to a gun violence mentality fuels a rigid, unyielding Congress. Believe it or not, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin recently tweeted (November 19, 2015) that "Jesus would fight for our Second Amendment and explains in her new book that "Jesus is a proponent of carrying" because she found a Bible verse (Luke 22:36) where Christ seemingly encourages his apostles to procure a couple of swords.

I feel confident that the Jesus I have been taught to worship had no desire to carry. He was much too busy spreading love and peace to pull the trigger on his enemies and opponents. To me, the echoes of the President's words ring true and reverberate in a darkening, dangerous landscape. "Enough is enough." Despite the fervent feelings of gun advocates and anti-gun advocates, we must do a better job of stopping bulleted violence. I know Jesus did weep while walking our planet, and I know he must be weeping now as he endures the senseless slaughter of innocent American human beings.

Why People Like Trump: "Look On My Works and Despair!"

As Donald Trump continues to lead all other Republican candidates for president in many polls, many shake their heads in disbelief. It seems every day Trump spits his spiteful venom at new, unsuspecting targets as he denigrates opponents and any others who question his authority. While doing so, he claims he is vastly intellectually superior to everyone else. One tweet reported Trump saying: "Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest – and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure, its not your fault."

It seems his goal to become the Republican presidential candidate knows no tactical bounds -- not even funding since the ultra-rich tycoon is bankrolling his own candidacy. He recently boasted that he would be willing to spend $1 billion of his own money if that's what it takes to win the 2016 election. And, in his mind, this money is well spent since he claims, "Sadly the American dream is dead. But if I get elected president, I will bring it back bigger and better and stronger than ever before, and we will make America great again."

Trump mania causes me to marvel at the reason for the mass attraction to a man who possesses a ginormous ego served by unfettered, self-serving vanity. Is Trump a new icon because he flaunts his opinion? Many are said to love him not for what he says, but for how he says it. In other words -- people admire him because right, wrong, or indifferent, Trump takes a stand. These people adore his abundant self-confidence and claim he does not back down in the face of political correctness. Even if he flip-flops, and he does, he claims he has been misinterpreted and exploited by others. Despite his offensive remarks, Republicans still see him as the frontrunner for nomination. 


Still, in a religious sense, vanity is a form of self-idolatry and one of the so-called Seven Deadly Sins.


Vanity is defined as "the quality of excessive pride in one's own appearance or achievements in which that person likens himself to the greatness of God for the sake of his own image." Acting in vain, he thereby becomes separated and perhaps, in time, divorced from the Divine grace of God.


Philosophically speaking, vanity may refer to a broader sense of egoism and pride. American aphorist
Mason Cooley (1927 – July 25, 2002) once stated: "Vanity well fed is benevolent. Vanity hungry is spiteful." Spite may be considered Trump's most successful weapon as he lashes out at all who dare have contrary beliefs and opinions.

To me, this strutting peacock of a man courts the American political arena with ravenous, self-centered desire knowing no bounds. And 37 percent of those polled (Reuters/Ipsos data; November 26, 2015) want Donald Trump to be President of the United States. I find this troubling not only because an egomaniac like Trump has a legitimate chance of leading the Free World but also because a significant number of Americans hold this highly judgmental behavior in esteem.

Exploring the Trump Popularity

Jack Schafer, Ph.D., is a professor at Western Illinois University in the Law Enforcement and Justice Administration (LEJA) Department. He is a retired FBI Special Agent, and he served as behavioral analyst assigned to FBI's National Security Behavioral Analysis Program. Schafer says ...

"Trump says what ordinary people cannot say for fear of losing their jobs, status in their communities, or their reputations. When built-up pressure is finally released, people feel good about themselves. The Golden Rule of Friendship states, 'If you want people to like you, make them feel good about themselves.' When Trump speaks, he makes people feel good about themselves and, as a result, people like him."

 

(Jack Schafer. "Why People Like Trump." Psychology Today. October 22, 2015.)

In this view of the reason for Trump's popularity, much of society has "dammed-up" forbidden thoughts. And, even with all of the well-intentioned aspects of political correctness, the people long to speak directly without constraint and convention. Trump seems to be a release for the egotistical desires of those who have become tired of thinking before speaking and acting.

Of course, 99.9% of Americans do not have the immense wealth and resources that allow Donald Trump to speak and act freely without fear of reprisal. Money "talks" and Trump lives in an exclusive environment which demands little restraint; he is accustomed to having his ego stroked no matter the hurtful refuse that pours from his mouth. In fact, his tremendous ego is the major component of his personality that drives his unbridled personal actions. In the "real world," the rest of us less fortunate souls must practice consistent virtuous behavior to gain respect and favor. Not so with Mr. Trump. 

Freud contends that the ego develops from the id, the aspect of personality in charge of instinctive and primitive behaviors, and it is the ego that normally ensures that the impulses of the id can be expressed in a manner acceptable in society. I believe Trump has had little exposure for understanding the needs of normally acceptable behavior. His aloofness, though polished, is frightening in its consistency.

What of his superego? The superego, the aspect of personality that holds all of internalized moral standards and ideals acquired from both parents and from society, is the supreme control center of a person's sense of right and wrong. According to Freud, the superego begins to emerge at around age five.

Five-year-old, Donald, said to be energetic and bright, had a privileged childhood as the son of a builder and real estate developer who specialized in constructing and operating middle income apartments in the Queens, Staten Island, and Brooklyn. Later, when he joined the family business, the Trump Organization, he excelled in business transactions. No doubt, Trump has been a highly successful businessman and has used his superego to do what  is "right and wrong" in a business sense.

But ...

It is evident to me that Trump's interpersonal sensitivity is grossly lacking. His apparent lack of control often causes him to react in a hostile nature that alienates others. Ryne A. Sherman, Ph.D. and Florida Atlantic University's "Distinguished Teacher of the Year Award" winner (2013), says this about Trump:

"Although ambitious and sociable ... Trump is low on prudence. He doesn't care much for rules and tends to avoid them. He is independent minded and seems unconcerned with details... While being highly colorful and inquisitive, he seems unusually self-confident, and shows feelings of grandiosity and entitlement. These (type of) individuals tend to make a good first impression, but are difficult to work with because they feel entitled to special treatment, ignore their critics, and intimidate others. He'll (Trump) tend to overestimate his capabilities."

(Ryne A. Sherman. "The Personality of Donald Trump."

Psychology Today. September 17, 2015.)

Schafer believes the big attraction to Donald Trump is the thrill to live "through" him. Perhaps, to his many fans, he embodies the perfect image of a supreme Big Boss in a rich "Disneyland" of control and financial achievement. In a world where a view of personal success depends so much upon accumulation of property and material possessions, Trump is the ideal -- the top of the heap, dog-eat-dog commander. Sherman explains ...

"Most people have little in common with Trump but many Americans live vicariously through Trump. Trump’s success, popularity, and self-confidence fill the secret dreams of ordinary people. To reject Trump is to render the aspirations of most Americans meaningless."

(Jack Schafer. "Why People Like Trump." Psychology Today. October 22, 2015.)

So, the paradox of Trump that is so unbelievable to many Americans is that the more unpleasant his personality is revealed to be, the greater his appeal to his core group of supporters. These people typically say, "Trump as the only candidate with 'the balls' to be aggressive and unpredictably offensive."

Even with a reputation of being boldly outspoken, nothing guarantees he has the political chops to be an effective statesman. And, that is my greatest fear: I believe people are being hoodwinked by a kingly attitude devoid of substance. Trump's blustering is his calling card, and the charisma it creates seems to reek of negativity for compromise and solution. In many ways, he seems imposing and almost tyrannical in his approach, certainly not elegant and dignified.

If people are projecting into Trump what they want to see, does this desire drive an egotistical cult of  personality that encourage "right-thinking" Americans to insult others without regret, break rules of conduct without fear of reprisal, and routinely protest diverse thinking without regard for the good of the general public?

I see this "power means all" attitude as a blight that extinguishes cohesiveness and strengthens partisanship. I despise strong the "I" and "we" cronyism that has led to disrespect and stalemate. Robert Tracinski, senior writer at The Federalist, says ...

"Changing the political system is patient work that takes decades, and most of it is done, not by electing the 'right guy' in a single election, but by promoting the right ideas to your fellow citizens and actually convincing people, which is really annoying work.

"What doesn’t get the job done is, from my experience, the favorite activity of Donald Trump’s supporters: insulting people on the Internet. So no wonder they want to short-circuit the system and indulge the fantasy that they can push through their agenda, whatever it is, just by electing a guy who will insult people on a bigger scale."

(Robert Tracinski. "Donald Trump's Paradoxical Cult of Personality."
The Federalist. November 27, 2015.)

Belittlement -- of his fellow political opponents, of immigrants, of women, of the handicapped, of Muslims, and of any others who do not share his commanding mindset is beyond offensive to those who see through Trump's ego. He may not be a villain or a tyrant, yet he lacks critical leadership skills to be the President of the United States.

Many people evidently are convinced that Donald Trump is a gutsy, homespun hero. In Trump, they may view ideals and liberties they desperately wish they possessed. Oh yes, Trump does promise to give the people what they want -- to make life great. But, to me, what his supporters believe he will deliver is "pie in the sky" akin to buying a lottery ticket with winning odds of one in a million.

So, in my view, Trump is a hollow figure head -- a product of blue-collar frustration -- a frail, straw man so uncomfortable with the slightest opposition that he consistently exhibits his lack of decency and diplomacy without regard or without regret.

Cris Cillizza of the Washington Post relates the following:

"Trump's comments about anyone who stands in his way are pointless, the reflex action of someone who aims to destroy anyone who dares question him... He seems to think that name-calling -- because most politicians don't engage in it -- is somehow consistent with his broader anti-politician image.

"The problem is that his message works when he is willing to say things other people can't or won't about policy matters.  But, name-calling isn't a message. And, simply trying to be as offensive as possible to the largest number of people isn't a message.

"Trump has hit a vein in the American consciousness.  But, he doesn't really know why it is people are responding to him. It's because he's willing to break with political protocol on issues that matter to people, not because he's willing to engage in a verbal food fight with everyone who crosses his path."

(Cris Cillizza. "What Donald Trump gets wrong about why people like him."

The Washington Post. August 08, 2015.)

Simply stated in psychological terms, Trump is P-OED -- Predominantly Over-occupied in Ego Development, which, in his case, prevents his superego from emerging as his saving grace. Like all human monuments to vanity, his legacy is fragile and prone to fall to inevitable natural design.

Ozymandias

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: `Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear --
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.'                         

By Percy Bysshe Shelley