Adventus

"The central doctrine of Christianity, then, is not that God is a bastard. It is, in the words of the late Dominican theologian Herbert McCabe, that if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you."--Terry Eagleton

"...doesn't philosophy amount to the sum of all thinkable and unthinkable errors, ceaselessly repeated?"--Jean-Luc Marion

“The opposite of poverty is not wealth; the opposite of poverty is justice."--Bryan Stevenson

Tuesday, April 16, 2019

Everybody knows this is no place to be



I'm old enough to remember when the POTUS wasn't a constant source of international embarrassment.  Trump offered advice no one asked for about the burning of Notre Dame; and now we have to hear about what an ignorant boob he is.

“Everything would have collapsed,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Michael Bernier, a fire chief who speaks for the national civil defence organisation and who described the suggestion as “risible”.

Releasing even one load from a Canadair water bomber used to fight forest fires on Notre-Dame would be “the equivalent of dropping three tonnes of concrete at 250 kilometres per hour (155mph)” on the ancient monument.

“It would have been like bowling with the cathedral… the two towers might have fallen.

“It was technically impossible, undoable and most of all would have been utterly useless” to douse the flames from the air, Bernier added.

In fact, dropping a 6,300-litre (1,664-gallon) load from a Canadair water bomber would have put the lives of firefighters and anyone in the area at risk, he added.

“Neighbouring buildings would have been hit by flying blocks of hot stone, and the whole area would have had to be evacuated.”

With more than 500 firefighters already at the scene — many within the building — that would have been impossible.

Even using a helicopter to drop 1,500 litres of water would have left only the towers standing, Bernier insisted.

“The nave would have collapsed, the flying buttresses would have gone,” he said.
“If a plane had been used the whole of the structure might have tumbled.”
It's not that his comment was stupid (it was); it's that officials in the countries affected by catastrophe and the President's stupid observations, have to take so much time and effort to respond to them; because, after all, the POTUS (whoever he is) has to be taken seriously.

For how much longer?

Which makes this all the more interesting:


I have to admire the euphemisms Greg Sargent must employ to say the POTUS doesn't give a shit about the safety of a U.S. Representative:  she's a woman and a Muslim and non-white, so screw her, is clearly what Trump means.  Or something undefined "does not trouble him sufficiently to dissuade him" from comment.
He does know what he's doing.  He doesn't care.  Shame on us if we, knowing what he's doing, don't care enough to vote for whoever, in the end, is available to replace him.

Shame on us, too, that our public discourse is only now beginning to broach the subject that our President is not fit to live among us, or to be our President; and that lack of fitness is not because of his politics, but because of he himself.  That only now have we truly started to take seriously how damaged and damaging this man is.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home