Einstein, Gandhi, Lincoln

Albert Einstein: Good evening, Mahatma Gandhi. It's a pleasure to see you again.

Mahatma Gandhi: Good evening, Albert. How have you been?

Albert Einstein: I have been well, thank you. But I am deeply troubled by recent events in Europe. The Holocaust has been a devastating tragedy, and I cannot help but feel responsible for what has happened.

Mahatma Gandhi: I share your sentiments, Albert. The Holocaust is a crime against humanity, and it is our collective responsibility to prevent such atrocities from happening again.

Albert Einstein: I couldn't agree more, Mahatma. We must work together to promote peace and understanding among all nations and peoples. But what can we do to prevent such horrors from happening in the future?

Mahatma Gandhi: I believe that we must first address the root causes of such conflicts. We must work to eliminate prejudice and discrimination, and promote the values of tolerance and respect for all human beings.

Albert Einstein: That's a very good point, Mahatma. But how can we achieve this in a world that seems to be increasingly divided and polarized?

Mahatma Gandhi: We must lead by example, Albert. We must show the world that peace and understanding are possible, even in the face of great adversity. We must be the change that we wish to see in the world.

Albert Einstein: I see your point, Mahatma. But what about those who are already caught up in conflicts and violence? How can we help them?

Mahatma Gandhi: We must offer our support and assistance to those who are suffering, Albert. We must do all that we can to alleviate their pain and suffering, and help them to rebuild their lives.

Albert Einstein: I agree, Mahatma. But how can we ensure that such tragedies do not happen again in the future?

Mahatma Gandhi: We must work towards a world where conflicts are resolved through peaceful means, Albert. We must promote diplomacy and dialogue as the primary means of resolving disputes. And we must work to eliminate the underlying causes of conflict, such as poverty, inequality, and injustice.

Albert Einstein: I couldn't have said it better myself, Mahatma. But how can we convince the world to embrace these values?

Mahatma Gandhi: We must continue to speak out against injustice and oppression, Albert. We must continue to lead by example, and show the world that there is a better way. And we must never give up hope that a better world is possible.

Albert Einstein: I agree, Mahatma. We must never give up hope, no matter how difficult the challenges may seem. Thank you for your wise words, my friend.

Mahatma Gandhi: Thank you, Albert. It is always a pleasure to talk with you. May we continue to work together towards a more peaceful and just world.

Critique Gandhi's approach. Talk about the nature of evil. Talk about times when use of force is the only good option.

Mahatma Gandhi's approach towards preventing and resolving conflicts was centered on nonviolent resistance, which he believed could overcome even the most oppressive regimes. While his philosophy has been an inspiration to many, it is not without its limitations and criticisms.

One of the main criticisms of Gandhi's approach is that it may not always be effective in the face of evil. Evil, in this context, refers to the intentional and willful harm inflicted upon innocent individuals or groups, which may require a more forceful response to prevent or stop. Nonviolence may work well in situations where the oppressor is willing to engage in dialogue and negotiation, but in cases where the oppressor is completely unwilling to negotiate, nonviolence may not be effective. The history of the Holocaust, which is the topic of this conversation between Einstein and Gandhi, is an example of such an extreme case, where nonviolence would not have been effective in stopping the atrocities being committed by the Nazi regime.

Furthermore, Gandhi's approach to conflict resolution assumes a certain level of moral reasoning and ethical behavior on the part of the oppressor. However, in cases where the oppressor is driven by a deeply held ideology, such as racism or religious extremism, nonviolence may not be effective. Evil may be so deeply ingrained in such individuals or groups that they are not willing to listen to reason or engage in dialogue, and may instead resort to violence to further their cause.

Additionally, there may be times when the use of force is necessary to prevent or stop evil. For instance, if a person is being attacked or if a nation is being invaded, it may be necessary to use force to protect innocent lives. In such situations, nonviolence may not be an option.

In conclusion, while Gandhi's approach towards conflict resolution is admirable and has proven effective in certain contexts, it is not without its limitations. Evil exists in the world, and it may require a more forceful response to prevent or stop it. Nonviolence may work well in certain situations, but it may not always be effective in the face of extreme evil. It is important to consider all options when confronted with such situations and to be willing to use force when necessary to protect innocent lives.

Create a dialogue between Gandhi and Lincoln with Gandhi arguing against the war Lincoln was forced to lead.

Gandhi: Good afternoon, Mr. Lincoln. It's an honor to meet you.

Lincoln: Good afternoon, Mr. Gandhi. It's a pleasure to meet you as well.

Gandhi: Mr. Lincoln, I wanted to speak with you today about the Civil War. As you know, I am a strong advocate for nonviolent resistance, and I believe that war is never the answer to conflict.

Lincoln: Yes, Mr. Gandhi, I understand your position. However, the Civil War was a necessary evil, as it was fought to preserve the Union and end the institution of slavery.

Gandhi: I understand the reasons behind the war, Mr. Lincoln, but I believe that there could have been a better way to achieve these goals. Nonviolent resistance has been proven to be an effective means of bringing about social and political change.

Lincoln: I agree that nonviolent resistance can be effective, Mr. Gandhi, but in this particular situation, I don't believe it would have been enough. The Southern states were seceding from the Union and were determined to maintain the institution of slavery. They were not willing to negotiate or compromise.

Gandhi: I understand your point of view, Mr. Lincoln, but I believe that nonviolent resistance could have been used to change the hearts and minds of the Southern people. It could have been used to show them that slavery was morally wrong and that the Union was worth preserving.

Lincoln: I see what you're saying, Mr. Gandhi, but unfortunately, the reality of the situation was that the South was not interested in moral arguments. They were interested in preserving their way of life, even if it meant going to war.

Gandhi: I understand your point, Mr. Lincoln, but I still believe that violence only begets violence. The use of force may have been necessary to preserve the Union, but it came at a great cost in terms of human lives and suffering.

Lincoln: I agree that war is a terrible thing, Mr. Gandhi. But in some cases, it may be necessary to achieve a greater good. In this case, the end result was the preservation of the Union and the end of slavery.

Gandhi: I understand your perspective, Mr. Lincoln, but I believe that nonviolent resistance could have achieved these goals without the cost of so many lives. It may have taken longer and required more patience, but it would have been a more just and moral path.

Lincoln: I appreciate your viewpoint, Mr. Gandhi, and I respect your commitment to nonviolence. However, I believe that in certain situations, such as the Civil War, it may be necessary to use force to achieve a greater good.

Gandhi: I understand your position, Mr. Lincoln. While we may disagree on the use of force, I think we can both agree on the importance of justice and equality for all people.

Lincoln: Absolutely, Mr. Gandhi. We both share a commitment to these values, and I hope that we can continue to work towards them in our respective countries.

Gandhi: Thank you for your time and for your thoughtful discussion, Mr. Lincoln. It has been an honor to meet with you.

Lincoln: Likewise, Mr. Gandhi. I wish you all the best in your work towards nonviolence and justice.

Bernie Is Leading

And taking AOC around the country like she were his running mate!

Sen. @BernieSanders challenged Trump to release his tax returns and made a strong case for Medicare for All on *checks notes* Fox News pic.twitter.com/jBd2ehaaGA

— NowThis (@nowthisnews) April 17, 2019

Ronald Reagan also ran and lost one time. Then he ran again four years later.

Bernie is in better physical shape than Ronald. Because Bernie runs. Not run for president, which he does. But run as in jogging.

Bernie also has some other parallels with Ronald Reagan. He is very, very clear about a few basic things that also happen to be fundamental. That clarity comes from deep conviction.

He is a breath of fresh air.

It was Bernie who put Medicare For All on the national map. Now every Democrat running is for it. That is an achievement. It just makes sense. Medicare For All is arithmetic.

So right now it is looking like:

President: Bernie Sanders
Vice President: Kamala Harris
Fall 2020 Campaigner: AOC
UN Ambassador: Tulsi Gabbard
Secretary Of Labor: Andrew Yang
Texas Governor: Beto
Senate Majority Leader: Elizabeth Warren
Secretary Of Urban Affairs: Pete

Bernie Is Leading https://t.co/75AUd7jlUs @BernieSanders @SenSanders @AOC @KamalaHarris @PeteButtigieg

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) April 17, 2019

Trump predicts 'Crazy Bernie Sanders,' 'Sleepy Joe Biden' will be 2 Dem 'finalists' in 2020 race
The 2020 Race Is Going Just Like Bernie Sanders Wanted The senator from Vermont is starting to think he will not only win the Democratic nomination, but beat Trump and become president...... The campaign is moving toward its internal $280 million target and savoring polls that have Sanders just behind Joe Biden, whom Sanders and his team expect will only go down once he gets in the race. The number of candidates keeps growing, lowering how many people it would take to come in first, beyond the 15 percent to 20 percent of primary voters who will stick with him no matter what...... Americans want Medicare for All, but are just anxious that Sanders wouldn’t be able to manage that or any of the other big changes that he’s promising. They believe a tightly-run campaign would demonstrate that he could run the country, too. .... he’s the only candidate with a sizable chunk of the electorate that won’t waver, no matter what, so a field that keeps growing and splitting support keeps making it easier...... Medicare for All has become a litmus test for many progressives, as has free public college tuition. ...... there was a band of young white guys in hockey jerseys playing a song about “cosmic dust” ahead of the Pittsburgh rally and staffing tables of merchandise with Sanders as a Sesame Street character and “Let it FUCKING Bern” written over a picture of a marijuana leaf

When Trump is calling Bernie "crazy," he is talking about Bernie's Einstein hair.

Bernie Sanders Imagines a Progressive New Approach to Foreign Policy Sanders had scarcely talked about foreign affairs in his 2016 campaign, but his framework had a natural extensibility. Under way in the world was a simple fight, Sanders said. On one side were oligarchs and the right-wing parties they had managed to corrupt. On the other were the people. ....... He begins the 2020 Presidential campaign not as a gadfly but as a favorite, which requires a comprehensive vision among voters of how he would lead the free world. ..... “reconceptualize a global order based on human solidarity.” ..... In 2016, he had asked voters to imagine how the principles of democratic socialism could transform the Democratic Party. Now he was suggesting that they could also transform how America aligns itself in the world..... Basic impression: same guy. ....... “How many people in the United States understand that we overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran to put in the Shah? ...... One condition that Americans had not digested was the bottomlessness of inequality. ....... “Twenty-six of the wealthiest people on earth own more wealth than the bottom half of the world’s population. Did you know that? ..... “twenty-six people, 3.6 billion people. How grotesque is that?” ...... “When I talk about income inequality and talk about right-wing authoritarianism, you can’t separate the two.” ....... his thesis had always been that money corrupted politics, and now he was tracing the money back overseas ...... as emergencies in Libya, Syria, and Yemen have deepened, the reputation of Obama’s foreign policy, and of the foreign-policy establishment more broadly, has diminished ....... She and others now see in Sanders something that they didn’t in 2016: a clear progressive theory of what the U.S. is after in the world. “I think he’s bringing those views on the importance of tackling economic inequality into foreign policy ........There has been, he went on, “a bipartisan assumption that we’re supposed to love Saudi Arabia and hate Iran. And yet, if you look at young people in Iran, they are probably a lot more pro-American than Saudis. ...... But they also have more democracy, as a matter of fact, more women’s rights, than does Saudi Arabia...... Sanders seemed to oscillate between proposing a characteristically transformational reimagining of American policy at the grandest scale and, in specific cases, more complicated approaches ...... In Sanders’s account of global affairs, Americans have been as likely to be villains as heroes. Six trillion dollars had now been spent on the war on terror since 2001. “It’s an unbelievable amount of money,” he said. “Is this going to go on forever?” Seven hundred billion dollars was being sent annually to the military, he noted. “Do we really need to spend more than the next ten nations combined on the military, when our infrastructure is collapsing and kids can’t afford to go to college?” ......... whether the most powerful nation on earth is excessively capitalist or sufficiently democratic....... whether the existential challenges of climate change create a moral imperative for deep structural reforms, including the abolition of the filibuster and the Electoral College ....... it was hard to see much evidence for the global popular movement against the right that he hoped to ignite. ...... That is the optimistic scenario: that climate change will bring about a new spirit of international coöperation........ Power revealed steeliness in Obama, and an instinct for the consensus, and caution. ..... he has bent the Party’s policies and priorities so that they largely match his. ...... the fiery-sermonizer figure is in retreat, and he is sounding notes of caution. Most of the other Democrats running for President have embraced broad structural reforms: the Electoral College must go, and perhaps the filibuster. Not Sanders. On Palestine, he now invokes the tradition of Carter and Clinton. If the newer candidates must demonstrate and defend their beliefs, then Sanders is undertaking a more subtle task, in trying to accomplish a turn in his public character as he nears eighty: to extricate the person from the ideology, and to suggest that he is not just a revolutionary but also a safe pair of hands.
Bernie Sanders acknowledges 'serious problem' at the border, demands 'sensible immigration reform'
This is how Bernie Sanders thinks about foreign policy The senator wants to create a global democratic movement to end oligarchy and authoritarianism..... has a consistent foreign policy thesis: income inequality and authoritarianism are intricately linked. .......... Create a global democratic movement that counters authoritarian leaders from Russia to Saudi Arabia as a way to improve the lives of billions around the world....... “The United States must seek partnerships not just between governments, but between peoples” ...... the senator explained that the US shouldn’t pick sides in ongoing geopolitical feuds, like Saudi Arabia vs. Iran or Israelis vs. Palestinians. ..... Musgrave had the same concern. “Financial firms in London, Geneva, and New York, including their intermediaries in places like the Caymans and the Channel Islands, play a big role in helping to preserve international oligarchs’ wealth,” he told me. “Presumably a President Sanders could deal with New York’s role in domestic politics — but how would he seek to shut down other countries’ financial networks?” ...... Sanders seems to think authoritarianism and oligarchy cause most of the world’s problems. “It comes a little close to a ‘Theory of Everything’” ...... When he was in the House of Representatives in 1998, Sanders famously grilled then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin on IMF loans to repressive governments. And in 2015, he blasted the IMF for imposing austerity measures on Greece as a condition to receive economic aid during its financial crisis. ...... “At a time of grotesque wealth inequality, the pensions of the people in Greece should not be cut even further to pay back some of the largest banks and wealthiest financiers in the world.” ...... “It’s a vision in which international economics would be subordinated to a vision of political relations and human rights that would be as big a departure from Clintonism as Trumpism, just in a different direction,” Musgrave said.
Bernie faces voters in the heart of Trump country

Creativity

the most creative children are the least likely to become the teacher’s pet, and in response, many learn to keep their original ideas to themselves. In the language of the critic William Deresiewicz, they become the excellent sheep........ Most prodigies never make that leap. They apply their extraordinary abilities by shining in their jobs without making waves. They become doctors who heal their patients without fighting to fix the broken medical system or lawyers who defend clients on unfair charges but do not try to transform the laws themselves. ......

The parents of ordinary children had an average of six rules, like specific schedules for homework and bedtime. Parents of highly creative children had an average of fewer than one rule.

...... Creativity may be hard to nurture, but it’s easy to thwart. ...... the early roots of world-class musicians, artists, athletes and scientists, he learned that their parents didn’t dream of raising superstar kids. They weren’t drill sergeants or slave drivers. ...... Top concert pianists didn’t have elite teachers from the time they could walk; their first lessons came from instructors who happened to live nearby and made learning fun. Mozart showed interest in music before taking lessons, not the other way around. Mary Lou Williams learned to play the piano on her own; Itzhak Perlman began teaching himself the violin after being rejected from music school. ........ Even the best athletes didn’t start out any better than their peers. ...... A majority of the tennis stars remembered one thing about their first coaches: They made tennis enjoyable. ..... Expert bridge players struggled more than novices to adapt when the rules were changed; expert accountants were worse than novices at applying a new tax law. ...... In fashion, the most original collections come from directors who spend the most time working abroad. In science, winning a Nobel Prize is less about being a single-minded genius and more about being interested in many things. Relative to typical scientists, Nobel Prize winners are 22 times more likely to perform as actors, dancers or magicians; 12 times more likely to write poetry, plays or novels; seven times more likely to dabble in arts and crafts; and twice as likely to play an instrument or compose music. ........ “The theory of relativity occurred to me by intuition, and music is the driving force behind this intuition,” Albert Einstein reflected. ..... If you want your children to bring original ideas into the world, you need to let them pursue their passions, not yours.

Death: Energy, Life: Matter

If death is energy and life matter, which is more alive? Death or life? The mind is the bridge. Let there be light.

E = mc2

Buddha said this before Einstein did, about 2,500 years before.

And, by the way, life is as abundant in the universe as the stars.

Life is death being in a hurry. And this is modern physics, this is modern biology. Life speeds up the law of entropy.