OK, re-enabled, but subtle-like. Will fancy it up later.

Had to disable the plugin for now. Having website issues.

And I'm not expecting THIS to be the final format...

Still working out some bugs with the whole "suite," as perhaps you may already have noticed.

Not really sure - would depend upon what you checked or didn't and when, and how you logged in, and also whether the emails are getting spaminated again. Will do some investigation later. I know there's already a potential problem for people who "social login" without sharing a real email address.

Not one thing, thousand others.

sorry, bob, if you subscribed to this thread... just need another comment to check out one more little thing

not yet fully molted... but I think it's close

et voila, voici - le snake.

(thanks for this discussion - also gives me a nice at hand basis for implementing the discussion "snake" at this site... in a bit)

Also:

Undoubtedly there is a temperamental courage, a warlike blood, which loves a fight, does not feel itself except in a quarrel, as one sees in wasps, or ants, or cocks, or cats.

Very nice bit there by Emerson. Should have been a blogger, though the passage you pick might give the impression he defined courage without reference to that which might be feared.

OK - I think I've got you now, and can see your argument.

I'm unsure about it. If problem or possible problem didn't occur to me before, that might be because I'm so disinclined to attribute any noble purpose or higher virtues to Trump at all. The question of tragedy in the highest sense would never even come up for me, but I can see that you might imagine it an open question for some.

I do think, however, it would be wrong to think of him as utterly devoid of virtues - or, for instance, to call him a "coward" as some do. I do think he possesses courage to some degree. It might be a foolish and inconsistent courage, but he's still "unafraid" in situations where angels fear to tread.

I suspect that a few people I've seen calling him a coward in social media would tremble before the prospect of, say, giving a speech to a room full of friends, much less before taking on all that Trump has taken on. More to the larger point, for better or I think much worse, of all of the individuals who put themselves forward for the presidency last year, he possessed spiritedness (thymos), expressed as machismo (and hard to separate from it), more than any of the others. Among the Rs, he often came across as a man (a deranged one) among boys. Clinton stood up to him, but couldn't overawe him: Perhaps she was calculating where we needed her to be indignant.

But if you're saying that blustering his way to the top of our heap doesn't make him a potentially tragic figure, and no one should be confused about that, I agree.

Well, I guess we disagree then about what Walt seems to be trying to say. I'm not aware of any point where he ever has taken Trump on his own terms seriously enough to speculate about him as a (classically) tragic figure, nor do I see any other evidence that Walt's means us to understand the term in a precise, literary sense.

I think if Walt has any classical definition in mind, then tragedy for him would be in this case on behalf not of Trump and the core Trumpists, who are more the villains in the play, but of foreign policy Realists and everyday Americans who'd staked any hope at all in the Trump disruption delivering a more Realist American strategy. Walt doesn't say whether he ever held such hopes himself, but he does lay out the, from his or his school's point of view, lost potential of the moment. So, if you believe there was such a potential, and if you believe failure to reach it is likely to equate with great waste in American blood and treasure, damage to the American interest, vast human suffering in war, and risks of global cataclysm, then the effect would probably satisfy two definitions of tragedy, and certainly the looser one - of a profoundly bad outcome.