Contact Form * Contact Form Container */ .contact-form-widget { width: 500px; max-width: 100%; marg

Name

Email *

Message *

The mysterious transmission of a great literary power by the “way” of maternal or paternal blood.

If you are lucky or unlucky enough to come from a literary family  and live under the false impression that there has been the of the mysterious transmission of a great literary power by the “way” of maternal or paternal blood.’

And you hear oh you are lucky for your parents to be 'writers'

perhaps it is not entirely desirable to be on the receiving end of these compliments.

For Proust it was hard to shake off the image of the fragile hypochondriac dandy.


Why does a man needs thirty pages to describe how he tosses and turns in his bed before falling asleep’

You have hear the legendary tale of how the BEATLES were turned down by a major recording 

Company


the same not knowing plagues literature, so what is published has an element of the Roulette Wheel


So those who claim to know are mostly the ones who don't know. Before making their momentous decisions they give off the appearance of having gone through gigantic subterranean labour’


Here is one publisher on Proust'  


À la Recherche du Temps Perdu (In Search of Lost Time one of the most
acclaimed pieces of writing of all time


 ‘I may be dead from the neck up, but rack my brains as I may, I fail to understand why a man needs 

thirty pages to describe how he tosses and turns in his bed before falling asleep’

 (Georges Boyer for Ollendorff ).


 As Tadié crisply says in his biography, Proust was not part of these people’s world,

 ‘and he doesn’t write like them, since he doesn’t write like anybody’. 


Proust published the book at his own expense 

Piety’s effect is to refuse questions, we are so pious we would not deign to answer you

Piety a secular transcendence  so claimed by the Liberal, Demorcratic.Progressivesis not quite the same as respect or understanding. 

Piety’s effect is to refuse questions i.e when you have an argument with a left leaning it is not long before they will resort to the ad hominen of name calling, bigot, racist, homophobe, et al.

Best to just walk away.

A fractured America now speaks in the language of … broken statues.

Image result for broken statues

We long to possess and when we do we no longer want the possession

We long to  possess others in order to kill our desire for them because it is so painful.  and in a lot of cases one we have  possessed them we no longer want them, it is only the 
It’s not that we are unrealistic, it’s that reality is unbearably disappointing. Only anticipation is satisfying Love and desire bring out the worst in us – make us craven, servile, arrogant, domineering, paranoid, obsessional, hysterical, distracted and deranged – and yet,  there is nothing else we want except, as Adam
Philips points out,  prestige and the admiration of others, which are desires born of our passionate love affair with ourselves.





Trump morphed from political tadpole to President, Hillary morphed from butterfly to caterpillar

Trump morphed from a political tadpole into a US President, Hillary morphed from a coloured butterfly full of promise into a crawling caterpillar.


For Hillary and US Democrats that their suffering will cease unbearable.

Liberals love to suffer,  of course they would prefer not to, and wherever we suffer we would prefer not to unless they can make their suffering their victim hood, a pleasure  What could cure these Democrats  of their suffering - say one long maternal kiss, 'there, there, cutchy cutchy coo.'
One long maternal kiss, lasting for a decade might do the trick


Desire makes all things flourish, possession withers them

Some young people spend most of  their young lives first sacralising, imbuing with or treating others as having a sacred character or quality.then aspiring to join 'these/those' people only to discover that to satisfy a wish, especially a childhood wish, can only ever end in disillusion, because the real pleasure is in the desiring, in the imagining. So after the catastrophic disappointment of other people the ones you put on such a pedestal, you start again carried on in a  lyricism of self-doubt



 

Giving people what they seem to want doesn’t get you what you thinks you want.


Do we please ourselves  by pleasing others.

However, this sort of eagerness to please others quickly becomes boring. Giving people what they seem to want doesn’t get you  what you  thinks you wants. 

And what you  thinks you  wants after so much longing and hoping and imagining, 


Between jargon and platitude, always choose jargon.

Jargon = the language, especially the vocabulary, peculiar to a particular trade, profession, or group: medical jargon. ... language that is characterized by uncommon or pretentious vocabulary and convoluted syntax and is often vague in meaning.

Platitude- =  a remark or statement that may be true but is boring and has no meaning because it has been said so many times before

The Democrats and their obligation to sneer

Democrats sneering and giggling (Pelosi) at the latest N. Korea developments.  It is a heavy psychological shadow  dogs Democrats to sneer and mock it hangs on them like an obligatory chain.
.

We are condemned to freedom or we are not responsible for the way we are?

are we “condemned to freedom,” in Jean-Paul Sartre’s phrase or are we determined?




Your Move: The Maze of Free Will


The Stone
The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless.
You arrive at a bakery. It’s the evening of a national holiday. You want to buy a cake with your last 10 dollars to round off the preparations you’ve already made. There’s only one thing left in the store — a 10-dollar cake.
On the steps of the store, someone is shaking an Oxfam tin. You stop, and it seems quite clear to you — it surely is quite clear to you — that it is entirely up to you what you do next. You are — it seems — truly, radically, ultimately free to choose what to do, in such a way that you will be ultimately morally responsible for whatever you do choose. Fact: you can put the money in the tin, or you can go in and buy the cake. You’re not only completely, radically free to choose in this situation. You’re not free not to choose (that’s how it feels). You’re “condemned to freedom,” in Jean-Paul Sartre’s phrase. You’re fully and explicitly conscious of what the options are and you can’t escape that consciousness. You can’t somehow slip out of it.
You may have heard of determinism, the theory that absolutely everything that happens is causally determined to happen exactly as it does by what has already gone before — right back to the beginning of the universe. You may also believe that determinism is true. (You may also know, contrary to popular opinion, that current science gives us no more reason to think that determinism is false than that determinism is true.) In that case, standing on the steps of the store, it may cross your mind that in five minutes’ time you’ll be able to look back on the situation you’re in now and say truly, of what you will by then have done, “Well, it was determined that I should do that.” But even if you do fervently believe this, it doesn’t seem to be able to touch your sense that you’re absolutely morally responsible for what you next.
The case of the Oxfam box, which I have used before to illustrate this problem, is relatively dramatic, but choices of this type are common. They occur frequently in our everyday lives, and they seem to prove beyond a doubt that we are free and ultimately morally responsible for what we do. There is, however, an argument, which I call the Basic Argument, which appears to show that we can never be ultimately morally responsible for our actions. According to the Basic Argument, it makes no difference whether determinism is true or false. We can’t be ultimately morally responsible either way.
The argument goes like this.
(1) You do what you do — in the circumstances in which you find yourself—because of the way you then are.
(2) So if you’re going to be ultimately responsible for what you do, you’re going to have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are — at least in certain mental respects.
(3) But you can’t be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
(4) So you can’t be ultimately responsible for what you do.
The key move is (3). Why can’t you be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all? In answer, consider an expanded version of the argument.
(a) It’s undeniable that the way you are initially is a result of your genetic inheritance and early experience.
(b) It’s undeniable that these are things for which you can’t be held to be in any way responsible (morally or otherwise).
(c) But you can’t at any later stage of life hope to acquire true or ultimate moral responsibility for the way you are by trying to change the way you already are as a result of genetic inheritance and previous experience.
(d) Why not? Because both the particular ways in which you try to change yourself, and the amount of success you have when trying to change yourself, will be determined by how you already are as a result of your genetic inheritance and previous experience


(e) And any further changes that you may become able to bring about after you have brought about certain initial changes will in turn be determined, via the initial changes, by your genetic inheritance and previous experience.

On being proud to be called a neurotic

Feel comfortable to be called a neurotic. You belong to that splendid, pitiable family which is the salt of the earth. Everything we think of as great has come to us from neurotics . . . We appreciate good music, fine paintings, a thousand exquisite things, without knowing what they cost those who created them in terms of insomnia, tears, fitful laughter, nettle rash, asthma, epilepsy, and worse still, a fear of dying, which you perhaps have experienced yourself,

Bill Maher and Jimmy Kimmel et al smirking connoisseurs of insolence’

Those dreadful late night comedian hosts fob off  Trump is with what they believe is an epicurean smile for they are experts in the art of smug  rudeness, yes,  smirking connoisseurs of insolence’

Liberals and their provisional liberties

Their only honour is precarious, . . . their only position unstable’  their only liberty provisional 

Proust and Trump

Proust's awkwardness came to seem, if not a virtue, certainly a kind of signature.
Trump's tweets  came to seem, if not a virtue, certainly a kind of signature.

Proust informs us that the countries we long for occupy more space in our lived life than the country we physically inhabit –

For the anti-Trumpers  How much further does their anguish, sense of betrayal .visceral hatred of the man,  penetrate in psychology than even psychology itself!’

Yes, New York Times jouranlists for instance, coult tell you a thing or two in their thier op-eds on Trump, how much more sharply suffering probes the psyche than does psychology itself.

But if you ask writers to talk about Proust, most of them will talk about themselves.

On Trumps election, the left, globalists, diversity, open borders addicts have encounter an upheaval or convulsion of their entire being,so certain they were that the Clinton (money machine) dynasty would
continue for another 4 perhaps 8 years and you have to be really 'educated' to desire that.



When people mouth agape, snore, are they shedding the redeeming marks of humanity

When one catches another person snoring, mouth agape, helpless, hapless, do you see them
in a state of having shed the various marks of humanity which had so previously you had thought of themImage result for person snoring

Or when sleeping peacefully as Proust would have it: When sleeping, Albertine is said to shed ‘the various marks of humanity which had so disappointed me’

 It was Proust who said,  that a writer inhabits his native language as if it were a foreign country; 

A la Oscar Wilde, Proust had a deeply romantic love of the idea of doom itself, i.e the Wildean, 'of that love that dare not speak its name.'


The Trumpian divide - No one has monopoly powers over the “correct”.VIEW

wHAT DO WE CALL understanding, WE TAKE SOMETHING FROM  HEARING OTHER PEOPLE#S WORDS, WE CALL THIS UNDERSTANDING.

No one has monopoly powers over the “correct” UNDERSTANDING

TAKE tRUMP, HE OF THE COIFFED MANE WHO IS CURRENTLY FRACTURING AMERICA

We can prefer one version to another, he is bad, liberal elite, coastal ciities, the 'educated' Hollywood
the MEDIA AND THE TALKERS

OR HE IS THE BEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD, 
MIDDLE AMERICA, FLY OVER STATES, THE UNWASHED, RURAL AMERICA, DEPLORALBES
ETC

but then we are choosing one understanding over another: either (mostly) the understanding we ourselves have, or (better) an understanding we hadn’t thought of before.

there is only 1 paradise. and that is a lost paradise

Proust himself could be more accommodating, and at one point implies that almost anything may be paradise if it keeps us out


“What was it Proust said about paradise? That all paradises are lost paradises? That the only true paradise is a lost paradise? That it isn’t paradise until it’s lost . . .”

What was it Proust said about paradise? That all paradises are lost paradises? That the only true paradise is a lost paradise? That it isn’t paradise until it’s lost? That paradise is a name for a favourite form of loss? He can plausibly be read as saying any of these things, and perhaps more than one at once. But the propositions are not identical, and it’s not easy to choose among them. Can’t we look at what Proust actually wrote? We can look at what he literally wrote, but that’s not quite the same thing.

all paradises are lost paradises.’ This is impeccably aphoristic, and assumes that false paradises are just not paradises at all

Why do we have an obsession with SNEAKERS?

A Brief History of America’s Obsession With Sneakers

Invented for athletics, sneakers eventually became status symbols and an integral part of street style



reebok.jpg

the way Bill Bowerman told the story, one of Nike’s greatest innovations came to him at breakfast. The University of Oregon track coach, who meticulously crafted custom shoes for each of his athletes, had been struggling to develop a shoe that the team could wear to train on surfaces other than the track. His “eureka” moment came while eating waffles with his wife on a summer Sunday in 1971, when it occurred to him that the grooves of the waffle iron were a perfect mold for the multi-terrain soles he envisioned. He poured molten rubber into iron after iron until he perfected the waffle sole pattern that Nike, which he cofounded in 1964, continues to use on some running and training shoes to

Why Asparagus Makes Your Urine Smell


If you’ve ever noticed a strange, not-entirely-pleasant scent coming from your urine after you eat asparagus, you’re definitely not alone.
Distinguished thinkers as varied as Scottish mathematician and physician John Arbuthnot (who wrote in a 1731 book that “asparagus…affects the urine with a foetid smell”) and Marcel Proust (who wrote how the vegetable “transforms my chamber-pot into a flask of perfume”) have commented on the phenomenon.
Even Benjamin Franklin took note, stating in a 1781 letter to the Royal Academy of Brussels that “A few Stems of Asparagus eaten, shall give our Urine a disagreable Odour” (he was trying to convince the academy to “To discover some Drug…that shall render the natural Discharges of Wind from our Bodies, not only inoffensive, but agreable as Perfumes”—a goal that, alas, modern science has still not achieved).
But modern science has, at least, shed some light on why this one particular vegetable has such an unusual and potent impact on the scent of urine. Scientists tell us that the asparagus-urine link all comes down to one chemical: asparagusic acid.
Asparagusic acid, as the name implies, is (to our knowledge) only found in asparagus. When our bodies digest the vegetable, they break down this chemical into a group of related sulfur-containing compounds with long, complicated names (including dimethyl sulfide, dimethyl disulfide, dimethyl sulfoxide and dimethyl sulfone). As with many other substances that include sulfur—such as garlic, skunk spray and odorized natural gas—these sulfur-containing molecules convey a powerful, typically unpleasant scent.
All of these molecules also share another key characteristic: They’re volatile, meaning that have a low enough boiling point that they can vaporize and enter a gaseous state at room temperature, which allows them to travel from urine into the air and up your nose. Asparagusic acid, on the other hand, isn’t volatile, so asparagus itself doesn’t convey the same rotten smell. But once your body converts asparagusic acid into these volatile, sulfur-bearing compounds, the distinctive aroma can be generated quite quickly—in some cases, it’s been detected in the urine of people who ate asparagus just 15-30 minutes earlier.
Of course, the whole asparagus-urine scent issue is complicated by an entire separate issue: Some people simply don’t smell anything different when urinate after they eat asparagus. Scientists have long been divided into two camps in explaining this issue. Some believe that, for physiological reasons, these people (which constitute anywhere from 20 to 40 percent of the population) don’t produce the aroma in their urine when they digest asparagus, while others think that they produce the exact same scent, but somehow lack the ability to smell it.
On the whole, the evidence is mixed. Initially, a pair of studies conducted in the 1980s with participants from France and Israel found that everyone produced the characteristic scent, and that a minority of people were simply unable to smell it. People with the ability to detect the scent, though, were able to smell it even in the urine of those who couldn’t smell it, indicating that the differences were rooted in perception, not production.
More recent studies, though, suggest the issue is a bit more complicated. The most recent study, from 2010, found that differences existed between individuals in both the production and detection of the scent.
Overall, scientists now conclude that most of the difference is in perception—that is, if your urine doesn’t seem to smell any differently after you eat asparagus, it’s likely that you simply can’t perceive the sulfurous compounds’ foul odor, but there’s a small chance it’s because your body digests asparagus in a way that reduces the concentration of these chemicals in your urine.

Why Do Mosquitoes Bite Some People More Than Others?

You come in from a summer hike covered with itchy red mosquito bites, only to have your friends innocently proclaim that they don’t have any. Or you wake up from a night of camping to find your ankles and wrists aflame with bites, while your tentmates are unscathed.
You’re not alone. An estimated 20 percent of people, it turns out, are especially delicious for mosquitoes, and get bit more often on a consistent basis. And while scientists don’t yet have a cure for the ailment, other than preventing bites with insect repellent (which, we’ve recently discovered, some mosquitoes can become immune to over time), they do have a number of ideas regarding why some of us are more prone to bites than others. Here are some of the factors that could play a role:

Blood type, metabolism, exercise, shirt color and even drinking beer can make individuals especially delicious to mosquitoes


We must be intolerant of the intolerant - but who classifies what is intolerant?

As a Hollywood uber celeb'recently reflected in words to this effect 'We have to decide when we take to the ramparts.' and you just know things are getting serious when liberal reasonable types, take their 'resist' movement to the extremes of: 'aux barricades, citoyens!'. But as Herbert Marcuse argued we must be intolerant of the intolerant. But surely that extends to both sides.The US is currently riven with hatred, indeed a fractured society, but let's not be a party pooper for it appears to be too much fun to ridicule, to condemn, or even just to jeer: Psychologists would tern such behaviour ' exhilerants,' Yet hardly a week passes without a mob assembling to excoriate President Trump, to add fuel the online mobs never disperse. Will the day come in the US when people start talking about things they like rather than the people they loath

Is Religion an Evolutionary Adaptation?

Religious people talk about things that cannot be seen, stories that cannot be verified, and beings and forces beyond the ordinary. Perhaps their gods are truly at work, or perhaps in human nature there is an impulse to proclaim religious knowledge. If so, it would have to have arisen by natural selection. It is hard to imagine how natural selection could have produced such an impulse. There is a debate among evolutionary scientists about whether or not there is any adaptive advantage to religion at all (Bulbulia 2004a; Atran and Norenzayan 2004). Some believe that it has no adaptive value itself and that it is just a hodge podge of of behaviors that have evolved because they are adaptive in other non-religious contexts. The agent-based simulation described in this article shows that a central unifying feature of religion, a belief in an unverifiable world, could have evolved along side of verifiable knowledge. The simulation makes use of an agent-based communication model with two types of information: verifiable information (real information) about a real world and unverifiable information (unreal information) about about an imaginary world. It examines the conditions necessary for the communication of unreal information to have evolved along side the communication of real information. It offers support for the theory that religion is an adaptive complex and it disputes the theory that religion is a byproduct of unrelated adaptive processes.

Modern biocultural theories about the evolution of religion can be divided into three categories (Dow 2006):
(1) Cognitive theories that postulate that religion is the manifestation of mental modules1 that have evolved for other purposes (Atran and Norenzayan 2004Boyer 2001, 2003).
(2) Ecological regulation theories that postulate that religion is a master symbolic control system regulating the interaction of human groups with their environments, and, therefore, it has evolved as an adaptive mechanism with this function (Rappaport 1999).

(3) Commitment theories that postulate that religion is a system of costly signals that reduce deception and create trust and cooperation within groups (Irons 2001Sosis 2004)

Defining religion for scientific study is difficult (Dow 2007). One feature of religion that seems to stand out as non-adaptive is the belief in the existence of an unseen, unverifiable world. The existence of gods, spirits, and the like cannot be verified by the senses. A belief in them makes no sense from an common evolutionary point of view. The animal whose conception of the world is out of touch with reality should be eliminated by natural selection. The one whose mental images correspond most closely to the real environment should be one to survive. The primary problem of explaining how religion has evolved through natural selection is the problem of explaining the belief in unreal things.

If religion is adaptive, the beliefs, perceptions, and symbols created by religion must increase human survival and reproduction in some way other than providing useful images of the environment. The impact of religious communication on survival is probably through its effect on social organization.

Obesity and type 2 diabetes is out of control

The staggering challenge the world will face in the future in terms of numbers of people who are obese, or have type 2 diabetes, or both. As well as the medical challenges these people will face, the costs to countries’ health systems will be enormous,” said Dr Alan Moses of Novo Nordisk Research and Development in Søborg, Denmark.

IMF says EU on brink of collapse

IMF says EU on brink of collapse and 'untenable' Euro may have to be SCRAPPED

THE FUTURE of euro currency and the entire EU project looks unsustainable without major change, according to a damning review by the International Monetary Fund and renowned economists.

So what will happen to all those persuasive 'talkers' the talking class the Remainers, the elite, the no borders, the globalists, the anti Trumpers when the EU folds they will do a Çlinton' and go around interminably moaning and the media will accommodate them - they like talkers.

 

Reading the New York Times and its comments is like reading Pravda in pre Perestroika/Glasnost Russia


'Integrity' that ambiguous virtue that gives theory a coating of sanctity

Law as Integrity.  at first that this title was designed merely to give the theory a coating of sanctity But the term makes a significant point. 

Consider what an ambiguous virtue integrity is. It can be ascribed with grudging respect even to someone whose principles you reject and whose purposes you oppose. 

A person of integrity is someone whose conduct follows from his principles (one should enquire here how his/her principle been derived)

the response might be my principles have been derived  in spite of public opinion, official pressure or personal temptation, and my principles are manifested in my conduct which forms in me a certain kind of morally intelligible whole.  Even if these values are wrong in the opinions of many,

So 'Integrity' is ab ambiguous virtue, no more than a theory, and gives one's integrity theory a coating of sanctity.

The practice of making a judgement

To decide what the law requires in a given case it is necessary to consider, not only the facts of the case, the ‘plain language’ of the statute, and the examples of its previous application, but also the point of the law and of the larger institutions and practices in which it is embedded. All this is built into the practice of adjudication.

The LAW is an interpretive concept

Dworkin’s  point is that when judges disagree over the correct decision in a difficult case, they are disagreeing over the correct interpretation of the law – over what the law is. 

There is not in such cases a plain fact as to what the law is, which anyone with enough information can discover. But that does not mean that there is no law at all, so that judges can make it up. Law, as Dworkin puts it, is an interpretive concept

The Liberal invoking of a higher (moral) order in support of one’s partisan convictions

This is a familiar Liberal sort of humbug: invoking the authority of a higher-order, (moral stance) ostensibly neutral position of principle in support of one’s partisan convictions. 

Moral reasoning should not play a role in legal interpretation, if so the temptation is to charge that  this theory of adjudication is just an excuse for reading one's  own moral and political preferences into the law


However Legal argument always presupposes a jurisprudential foundation, even if it is concealed. And since the role of the judiciary can be justified only in terms of a broader conception of the legal-political order, it presupposes a political morality as well. 

The Mueller probe - a circumvention of the democratic process.


Liberals accuse conservatives - Conservatives accuse liberals

Liberals accuse conservatives of refusing to recognise individual rights; conservatives accuse liberals of inventing law rather than discovering it.

Conservatives when they accuse liberals of asking judges to ignore what the law is and to substitute their personal views of what it ought to be – this being an abuse of power and a circumvention of the democratic process. 

This is a familiar Liberal sort of humbug: invoking the authority of a higher-order, (moral stance) ostensibly neutral position of principle in support of one’s partisan convictions

So should moral reasoning play  a role in legal interpretation, if so the temptation is to charge that  this theory of adjudication is just an excuse for reading one's  own moral and political preferences into the law

Dworkin’s first point is that when judges disagree over the correct decision in a difficult case, they are disagreeing over the correct interpretation of the law – over what the law is. 

There is not in such cases a plain fact as to what the law is, which anyone with enough information can discover. But that does not mean that there is no law at all, so that judges can make it up. Law, as Dworkin puts it, is an interpretive concept

To decide what the law requires in a given case it is necessary to consider, not only the facts of the case, the ‘plain language’ of the statute, and the examples of its previous application, but also the point of the law and of the larger institutions and practices in which it is embedded. All this is built into the practice of adjudication.

Legal argument always presupposes a jurisprudential foundation, even if it is concealed. And since the role of the judiciary can be justified only in terms of a broader conception of the legal-political order, it presupposes a political morality as well. 

Jurisprudence, however, is not identical with political theory, which can be Utopian in a way that jurisprudence cannot be.

 And since interpretation inevitably involves judgment about the best way to realise the purpose or point of the law, and of the system to which it belongs, it is a particularly delicate task to define the way in which the judge’s point of view can combine with other factors to yield a conclusion about what the law is which may not correspond to what he thinks it ought to be.



crabgrass in a smooth lawn. 

If anxiety is socially learned, it can also be unlearned

If anxiety is socially learned, it can also be unlearned


the more you identify with the “social safety” figures you see, the better the chances that you’ll be immunized from fear yourself. As they noted, “learning about emotional events by observing the actions of other individuals is ubiquitous in human culture” (p. 665). You can make that learning work for you by finding the people to identify with who inspire you to react calmly even in a scary world.

Reference:
Golkar, A., & Olsson, A. (2016). Immunization against social fear learning. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(6), 665-671. doi:10.1037/xge0000173

So the 'left' are fair and 'open minded'. Really


The journalist writes; ‘...such a current can be hard for fair-minded journalists, who rightly pride themselves on being open to new information and willing to re-examine their own assumptions.' Your blogger replies 'Subtext, the inference being, Michelle the journalist is ‘fair minded’ and ‘open’ to an opposing view. Indeed, no less than an all round jolly good ‘fellow’.
Yet reflect, Trump, no wordsmith him, refers to the behaviour of gang members as  'animals'. There is a cavalcade of left wing intentional mis-reporting of this, it is a concerted effort to mislead the public and is the essence of what has rightly been called 'fake' news.
It would now seem there was a spy placed in the Trump camp at the outset of the Election, by guess who?  Oh that, the left pooh pooh this as 'it was for his own protection'.  As if Trump was some naughty child
As to North Korea, where Michelle and her fair minded and open journalistic colleagues are loath to give Trump a scintilla of credit, from across the water, may I remind Ms Goldberg (the journalist in question)  such a proposed summit is not just for the benefit of the solipsistic USA it is for the world, not just for your children but for all our children,.
Reading the New York Times and indeed its scary comments is like perusing Pravda in pre Perestroika Russia, it is very scary stuff.  Where can one lay the blame for the kind of journalism that continues to fracture America? At the door of the Universities of course and at the feet of those soi disant educated tenured hermeneutes who have indoctrinated people like Ms Goldberg into believing that they writerly bent is ‘fair minded’ and ‘open’.

Why do we panic?

Panic disorder is a dramatic anxiety syndrome characterized by recurrent episodes of acute fear, is a common psychiatric condition 
it  is complex, encompassing aspects
 of acute fear (spontaneous and cued panics), chronic anxiety
(anticipatory fear

 .
But there is help at hand in the quickly evolving technology of neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience, and imaging science. 

However, improvements in the accuracy of our neurobiological models of panic are expected to lead to refinements in diagnosis, and more strategic and personalized therapies

In panic disorder it has been  found that a fundamental component of the condition is 
a tendency to misinterpret harmless body sensations (e.g. racing heart, intrusive thoughts) as a sign of an imminent physical or mental disaster (e.g. heart attack or go mad).

 People often adopt safety behaviours (such as sitting down to rest or trying to push intrusive thoughts out of their minds) that prevent them from learning that the sensations are not dangerous. They also become hyper-attentive to their bodies and are able to detect sensations that many others are not aware of. 

In social anxiety disorder, the team identified negative self-imagery, focusing too much attention on oneself during social interactions, and the use of safety behaviours as key maintenance processes.

see this page below for anxiety treatments

https://anxietyboss.com/anxiety-treatments/relaxation-strategies/