I get a chill when Trump goes out after John McCain, and not just because it's a pathetic sight watching a president trashing a dead senator who didn't bone spur his way out of national service. That's hypocrisy, certainly, but at least the soul he destroys is his own.
No, it's because Trump is destroying whatever lies in his path with nothing to replace it except for a dark, nihilistic burn-it-baby attitude that comes from elevating making-money into a religion. All our souls are in danger here.
Since the growth of humanism in 1600s Europe, we've been operating on the assumption that individual lives matter, that the many forms of heroism are the demonstration of the best we are capable of as a species, and that beauty and generosity matter.
These ideas are embodied in the US Constitution, the product of the 18th Century rationalism that we like to throw at the rest of the world. Even though the Constitution is not overtly religious, there has been a history of conflating it with that other great source of ideas, the teachings of a first century, middle-Eastern sage, a man we like to quote while ignoring the path of service to our fellow man that he promotes.
This combined, jumbled, value system that we have never really sorted out, along with the ethics it calls for, is now crumbling. We are tumbling into a dark pit where making money has become the ultimate goal, and it doesn't matter how it is amassed.
It's a rather brutal philosophy, one that begs the question of whether we can live with it.
For example, if people are valued only to the extent they contribute to (or detract from) society's economic base, life by itself is not ultimately valuable unless it is making someone money. Babies are good as long as they are born healthy. Old people, the disabled, and the sick need to be helped out of existence because they cost money. Building hospices is preferable to building hospitals (which are often religious in origin and part of the old order).
Keep going.
Health insurance should be punishingly expensive for the elderly, cheap for the children, and moderately priced for the middle-aged who, as current workers will buy the insurance and contribute to return on investment for the industry, which will therefore create jobs.
Education should be sufficient to create a workforce with basic reading and writing skills. Higher education is for an elite with the resources to pay for it since it is primarily a benefit to the individual and not the state.
It is, therefore, a waste of resources using higher education to promote social goals. Talented students will rise to the top without special assistance. The emphasis on campus should be on the professions and job preparation. New campuses should focus on teaching trades. Prestigious colleges should take the top ten percent or so of applicants without consideration for anything other than test scores because these are the most likely to make good return on investment.
And what of ethics? Well, it certainly won't be caring for one's fellow human beings. Not when cheating comes to be seen as cleverness, and fraud is merely caveat emptor. There will be no beauty left because to create it produces no jobs. Prolific choices of products cheaply made will replace the Grecian urns. There will also be no encouragement for innovations that have no obvious commercial value except for the surprise of curiosity and learning. There will be few literary gems written because no one will have time to read them.
Is this our world? I can see signs of it everywhere.
One of these days, I have to hope, people are going to look back on history and lament what we have lost. But it won't be Make American Great Again, it will be Make America Decent Again.
Thursday, March 21, 2019
Sunday, March 17, 2019
Mr. Trump: Have You no Concept of Workmanship, Honor, Ethics, and Beauty?
OK. I hope I'm not the only one seeing that the pendulum is swinging back to an America completely different from the vulgar MAGA that awful little man in the White House envisions. He who cheats the workman. He who values nothing beyond that which enriches him. He who has created no beauty beyond its ability to generate profit--or, that bugbear of the crass--its ability to appreciate in value over time.
I can almost hear his thoughts: "Let me tell you about that homo Da Vinci. He may be queer, but he sure delivered on return on investment. Wish I'd gotten in on the ground floor."
Somewhere around the Reagan years, corporate America decided that all Americans valued was getting material things at a cut-rate price. It didn't matter whether the cheap goods lasted or if they had beauty as long as Americans could feel that they owned the same sort of things as the wealthy. Under this rubric, owning a fake piece of Ming pottery was as good as owning an original as long as the fake was somewhat passable. And for a few dollars you could own something that looked a bit like Wedgwood china or Waterford crystal.
Actually, this remains the IKEA marketing strategy: cheap, modern-looking throw-away furnishings that look like real wood but aren't.
It didn't long, though, before thrift stores began to be clogged with the stuff.
My gosh. It turns out that the fake, cheap stuff did not feed the soul.
When I hold one of my genuine Waterford cut crystal glasses, there is a solidity that feels good in my hand. Held up to the light, light plays in prisms as the cuts create rainbows. Even someone not familiar with crystal finds themselves running their fingers down the sides of the glass. Holding the glass is an occasion.
The fake Waterford patterns, cut in glass of course, are dull. The light feels dead. The glasses and decanters feel like imposters.
The amazing thing is that once this difference is pointed out there's an ah-hah moment as the person recognizes the difference between art and drek. It's hard to go back once you see.
That's what I see happening in America.
We are led by a man without any sense of history beyond aggrandizing himself. Lincoln is good and useful as long as Trump can use the Lincoln legacy to promote himself. He quotes Kennedy to make himself appear inspiring without understanding the context of political speech. And he makes a virtue of it, as if to say if you have Donald Trump, why do you need Lincoln and Kennedy?
Sigh--I've written presidential speeches but always for presidents who had some grasp of history. As one of the assistants that you seem to burn through (I lasted five years with my president) may I ask when you are going to write your own, Sir?
Well, let me give you rule one: you can't--or shouldn't--rely on your assistants to write speeches that you will then reject three hours later in a tweet. Speech writers really hate that and you may very well find Trump memorabilia sold cut rate at Good Will.
America is telling you, Sir, that we are tired of imitations. If you can't govern, stand aside and let those more qualified rescue us from the terrible mess you are making.
I can almost hear his thoughts: "Let me tell you about that homo Da Vinci. He may be queer, but he sure delivered on return on investment. Wish I'd gotten in on the ground floor."
Somewhere around the Reagan years, corporate America decided that all Americans valued was getting material things at a cut-rate price. It didn't matter whether the cheap goods lasted or if they had beauty as long as Americans could feel that they owned the same sort of things as the wealthy. Under this rubric, owning a fake piece of Ming pottery was as good as owning an original as long as the fake was somewhat passable. And for a few dollars you could own something that looked a bit like Wedgwood china or Waterford crystal.
Actually, this remains the IKEA marketing strategy: cheap, modern-looking throw-away furnishings that look like real wood but aren't.
It didn't long, though, before thrift stores began to be clogged with the stuff.
My gosh. It turns out that the fake, cheap stuff did not feed the soul.
When I hold one of my genuine Waterford cut crystal glasses, there is a solidity that feels good in my hand. Held up to the light, light plays in prisms as the cuts create rainbows. Even someone not familiar with crystal finds themselves running their fingers down the sides of the glass. Holding the glass is an occasion.
The fake Waterford patterns, cut in glass of course, are dull. The light feels dead. The glasses and decanters feel like imposters.
The amazing thing is that once this difference is pointed out there's an ah-hah moment as the person recognizes the difference between art and drek. It's hard to go back once you see.
That's what I see happening in America.
We are led by a man without any sense of history beyond aggrandizing himself. Lincoln is good and useful as long as Trump can use the Lincoln legacy to promote himself. He quotes Kennedy to make himself appear inspiring without understanding the context of political speech. And he makes a virtue of it, as if to say if you have Donald Trump, why do you need Lincoln and Kennedy?
Sigh--I've written presidential speeches but always for presidents who had some grasp of history. As one of the assistants that you seem to burn through (I lasted five years with my president) may I ask when you are going to write your own, Sir?
Well, let me give you rule one: you can't--or shouldn't--rely on your assistants to write speeches that you will then reject three hours later in a tweet. Speech writers really hate that and you may very well find Trump memorabilia sold cut rate at Good Will.
America is telling you, Sir, that we are tired of imitations. If you can't govern, stand aside and let those more qualified rescue us from the terrible mess you are making.
Wednesday, March 6, 2019
Selling a House is a Revelation: Downsizing As an Act of Will
In a few days, my house is going on the market. It's time--not only for someone else to make this house their own, but also for me to get into a situation where there is family nearby. This move is proving to be its own learning curve (and I hate learning curves).
In most of the homes I've sold before, there's been some emotional component. In this case, not. That's a big difference. For one thing, I haven't been living here more than a few years, although that's been long enough to amass "stuff." But mostly, it's because after months of packing and downsizing, I've decided that I should have done it when I moved in rather than as I move out.
I suppose we all have some small shred of the hoarder in our souls. It was too easy to say (as my late partner did), "Well, it doesn't eat much," and then keep it because "there's room" and we might find a use for it someday.
Bad idea.
Bad idea is my big take-away with this house. Without the clutter, the house looks bigger, more orderly, and more able to display the things that truly matter.
The Boehm porcelain birds, for example, look regal and artistic in the china cabinet when they are no longer surrounded by things that say "Souvenir of . . .." Admittedly, the kitsch has sentimental value, but when faced with the need to pack it, I developed an entirely new philosophy: I decided I did not need to own it. I decided I could take pleasure in imagining someone else owning it (and polishing it).
With this new idea in mind, I set at the mass of things with vigor, looking for things that absolutely had to be moved to the new house. In these, I included family heirloom stuff, particularly when it had been promised to someone. Then all furniture in good shape over 50 years old, newer if not made of particle board (hats off Ikea). And things that could lead someone to say, "I remember grandma using that."
Now, I'm not saying that even these first things were all absolute keepers. I packed away the things I couldn't bear to part with (like my grandmother's wedding present, a Wedgwood and silver salad bowl). But the rest definitely could be set out for others to go through to make selections. Why wait until one is dead? Let them have the pleasure of cleaning the stuff.
This idea applied absolutely to physical books that weighed a ton. Unless they were first edition, signed by the author who might notice if they were gone, absolutely needed for craft or profession, or likely to explode in value like comics, I figured they could be enjoyed on line. There was one caveat though. A complete collection of Zane Grey novels with tattered covers that really ought to have gone to charity was saved by the claim of 100% certainty that they would be read yet again. I caved on that one.
And then there was the clothing that we promise ourselves we will wear once we lose a few pounds (particularly if it still has the original tags on it). Just because it was expensive or a steal, though, didn't mean it deserved space. Let someone else enjoy the thrill of finding it amidst racks of faded t-shirts or by rummaging through your garage sale (if you are brave enough to have one).
On the other hand, I resolved to de-China myself, unless it ought to be made in China. Like Ming pottery or jade. Charity shops are clogged with cheap imitations that people tire of. I kept the real stuff, because its appeal lasts. I felt the beauty of a good European porcelain dish bought at an estate sale. It fed my soul. It got to stay.
All bets were off with appliances and electronics. They're all made somewhere else, so I had to decide how much I used it and what shape it was in. Ripped Teflon coating was an immediate discard no matter how much the use. Burned on food stain, ditto. Out went my oversized electric frying pan. If I really needed it, I'd replace it later. I realized that an electric can opener was not a life necessity and that, in fact, I preferred the hand one I had been using for years. The food processor and blender were not negotiable, though. This is personal and preferably done in private, as when men sort their tools.
Old computer equipment, on the other hand, got recycled immediately. I reasoned that it would not be useful as a backup no matter how expensive it was originally (we had three towers each with a different floppy drive). Unless it was a museum piece, an original PC or Apple for example, I knew that Microsoft wouldn't support the older programs any more. I used to love Xywrite, but it got bought out, and I knew that the old hard drives I kept as well as the floppy discs were not going to be helpful except as discussion pieces. It was a wrench because I remembered what I had paid for the equipment (in the thousands), but if it had outlived its usefulness, it was better to reclaim the chemicals rather than have it sit in my closet.
Today I sit in a streamlined house that I could have had all along if I had only had the drive and the courage to go through the process. It's nice, but only part of the process. What comes next is equally important. I'm going to be doing this all again as I unpack. It will be interesting (to me anyway) to see how well I follow through.
In most of the homes I've sold before, there's been some emotional component. In this case, not. That's a big difference. For one thing, I haven't been living here more than a few years, although that's been long enough to amass "stuff." But mostly, it's because after months of packing and downsizing, I've decided that I should have done it when I moved in rather than as I move out.
I suppose we all have some small shred of the hoarder in our souls. It was too easy to say (as my late partner did), "Well, it doesn't eat much," and then keep it because "there's room" and we might find a use for it someday.
Bad idea.
Bad idea is my big take-away with this house. Without the clutter, the house looks bigger, more orderly, and more able to display the things that truly matter.
The Boehm porcelain birds, for example, look regal and artistic in the china cabinet when they are no longer surrounded by things that say "Souvenir of . . .." Admittedly, the kitsch has sentimental value, but when faced with the need to pack it, I developed an entirely new philosophy: I decided I did not need to own it. I decided I could take pleasure in imagining someone else owning it (and polishing it).
With this new idea in mind, I set at the mass of things with vigor, looking for things that absolutely had to be moved to the new house. In these, I included family heirloom stuff, particularly when it had been promised to someone. Then all furniture in good shape over 50 years old, newer if not made of particle board (hats off Ikea). And things that could lead someone to say, "I remember grandma using that."
Now, I'm not saying that even these first things were all absolute keepers. I packed away the things I couldn't bear to part with (like my grandmother's wedding present, a Wedgwood and silver salad bowl). But the rest definitely could be set out for others to go through to make selections. Why wait until one is dead? Let them have the pleasure of cleaning the stuff.
This idea applied absolutely to physical books that weighed a ton. Unless they were first edition, signed by the author who might notice if they were gone, absolutely needed for craft or profession, or likely to explode in value like comics, I figured they could be enjoyed on line. There was one caveat though. A complete collection of Zane Grey novels with tattered covers that really ought to have gone to charity was saved by the claim of 100% certainty that they would be read yet again. I caved on that one.
And then there was the clothing that we promise ourselves we will wear once we lose a few pounds (particularly if it still has the original tags on it). Just because it was expensive or a steal, though, didn't mean it deserved space. Let someone else enjoy the thrill of finding it amidst racks of faded t-shirts or by rummaging through your garage sale (if you are brave enough to have one).
On the other hand, I resolved to de-China myself, unless it ought to be made in China. Like Ming pottery or jade. Charity shops are clogged with cheap imitations that people tire of. I kept the real stuff, because its appeal lasts. I felt the beauty of a good European porcelain dish bought at an estate sale. It fed my soul. It got to stay.
All bets were off with appliances and electronics. They're all made somewhere else, so I had to decide how much I used it and what shape it was in. Ripped Teflon coating was an immediate discard no matter how much the use. Burned on food stain, ditto. Out went my oversized electric frying pan. If I really needed it, I'd replace it later. I realized that an electric can opener was not a life necessity and that, in fact, I preferred the hand one I had been using for years. The food processor and blender were not negotiable, though. This is personal and preferably done in private, as when men sort their tools.
Old computer equipment, on the other hand, got recycled immediately. I reasoned that it would not be useful as a backup no matter how expensive it was originally (we had three towers each with a different floppy drive). Unless it was a museum piece, an original PC or Apple for example, I knew that Microsoft wouldn't support the older programs any more. I used to love Xywrite, but it got bought out, and I knew that the old hard drives I kept as well as the floppy discs were not going to be helpful except as discussion pieces. It was a wrench because I remembered what I had paid for the equipment (in the thousands), but if it had outlived its usefulness, it was better to reclaim the chemicals rather than have it sit in my closet.
Today I sit in a streamlined house that I could have had all along if I had only had the drive and the courage to go through the process. It's nice, but only part of the process. What comes next is equally important. I'm going to be doing this all again as I unpack. It will be interesting (to me anyway) to see how well I follow through.
Saturday, March 2, 2019
There's Not an -ism that Doesn't Deserve a Good Whipping
It's funny how many auxiliary people you get to meet on Facebook when you add a "friend." I don't post myself unless I'm hit by nostalgia about some anniversary or when I've actually done a blog or got a book out--which means seldom.
My decision to be a Facebook hermit it based largely on the fact I don't want to be bothered by rabid posts promoting someone's passionate opinions about political events, particularly when I don't agree with them.
But, add a friend, and all of a sudden you get to see the passions of their friends. It's like driving a thousand miles across country with Trump or McConnell or some other equally obnoxious politician in the back seat.
The latest example to come out of the woodwork is a friend of a friend, whom I don't know, holding forth on the evils of socialism without ever defining it. I assume I was supposed to take her word that it was just bad.
Breaking with my usual practice, I actually responded by asking her to define socialism in other terms than she just didn't like it. The result was deafening silence. I guess the word is useful only as a label rather than a concept that has any real meaning.
This started me thinking about -isms in general.
We are surrounded by them: Catholicism, Protestantism, Fascism, Communism, Capitalism, Feudalism, Statism, Militarism, and Oligarchism, and on an on. An -ism is a cultural and/or economic structure that tends to become, in the words of the Catholic theologian, Paul Tillich, an "ultimate concern." In other words, the structure is capable of becoming a religion, if it isn't already. It shapes how people think, how they behave, how they live, what they value, and ultimately what they are willing to die for.
The fact is, though, that there isn't any one of them that is not dangerous. Every one of them needs to be modified, regulated, and shaped into something useful. Left to their own devices, every one of them becomes abusive, repressive, and corrupt.
I have never understood the insane desire to impose a "perfect" -ism. The role of any government is to modulate to make the "perfect union." Pure religion leads to bigotry and inquisitions. Pure Capitalism leads to dog eat dog where the rich devour the poor. Pure communism leads to political and economic control and squelches creativity. Pure oligarchism leads to the control of everything by a small, wealthy elite.
And what about socialism? Socialism basically argues that certain parts of community life, those essential services, like medical coverage, provision of utilities, education, care of the land, the military and national guard, and care of the young and the elderly, are in the national interest and are best operated as non-profit and community owned, paid for by taxes.
No one is calling for the government to take over everything and restrict personal freedom--that's communism.
Yes, socialism has a down side. It can promote a lack of ambition and self-preservation. That's why it too needs to be regulated. But I don't see anything wrong, myself, with the government taking the broadest possible view of what makes for a level playing field in society and what is needed for the future survival of the nation and a decent standard of living. But, for that, we actually need wise, far-seeing politicians.
Given our political climate and the endemic greed, hell will freeze before we are ready for those conversations.
But just for starters, could we please pay some attention to the words they use.
My decision to be a Facebook hermit it based largely on the fact I don't want to be bothered by rabid posts promoting someone's passionate opinions about political events, particularly when I don't agree with them.
But, add a friend, and all of a sudden you get to see the passions of their friends. It's like driving a thousand miles across country with Trump or McConnell or some other equally obnoxious politician in the back seat.
The latest example to come out of the woodwork is a friend of a friend, whom I don't know, holding forth on the evils of socialism without ever defining it. I assume I was supposed to take her word that it was just bad.
Breaking with my usual practice, I actually responded by asking her to define socialism in other terms than she just didn't like it. The result was deafening silence. I guess the word is useful only as a label rather than a concept that has any real meaning.
This started me thinking about -isms in general.
We are surrounded by them: Catholicism, Protestantism, Fascism, Communism, Capitalism, Feudalism, Statism, Militarism, and Oligarchism, and on an on. An -ism is a cultural and/or economic structure that tends to become, in the words of the Catholic theologian, Paul Tillich, an "ultimate concern." In other words, the structure is capable of becoming a religion, if it isn't already. It shapes how people think, how they behave, how they live, what they value, and ultimately what they are willing to die for.
The fact is, though, that there isn't any one of them that is not dangerous. Every one of them needs to be modified, regulated, and shaped into something useful. Left to their own devices, every one of them becomes abusive, repressive, and corrupt.
I have never understood the insane desire to impose a "perfect" -ism. The role of any government is to modulate to make the "perfect union." Pure religion leads to bigotry and inquisitions. Pure Capitalism leads to dog eat dog where the rich devour the poor. Pure communism leads to political and economic control and squelches creativity. Pure oligarchism leads to the control of everything by a small, wealthy elite.
And what about socialism? Socialism basically argues that certain parts of community life, those essential services, like medical coverage, provision of utilities, education, care of the land, the military and national guard, and care of the young and the elderly, are in the national interest and are best operated as non-profit and community owned, paid for by taxes.
No one is calling for the government to take over everything and restrict personal freedom--that's communism.
Yes, socialism has a down side. It can promote a lack of ambition and self-preservation. That's why it too needs to be regulated. But I don't see anything wrong, myself, with the government taking the broadest possible view of what makes for a level playing field in society and what is needed for the future survival of the nation and a decent standard of living. But, for that, we actually need wise, far-seeing politicians.
Given our political climate and the endemic greed, hell will freeze before we are ready for those conversations.
But just for starters, could we please pay some attention to the words they use.
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
Bohemian Rhapsody and the Critics
It's a rare occasion when I comment on movies. In fact, I don't think I ever have before. In the case of Bohemian Rhapsody, I am prepared to make an exception. Not because of the movie itself but because of what the critical reception says about critics and criticism.
I use the word "reception" very loosely because the critics, or those who fancy themselves serious critics, did not receive it well at all.
From what I can gather, the critics wanted to see a salacious expose of what they assumed to be Freddie Mercury's sex life. Instead of XXX, they got PG13, however, and they were pissed. They wanted what Bill Maher called "the suck dick" parts. When they didn't get them, they tried to overlook the film, including Rami Mallik's stellar performance, by predicting that the other nominated films were more obvious choices for Oscars.
Clearly, Queen fans did not agree. They turned the movie in a money-making juggernaut, indicating that there was only so much personal detail they wanted to know.
It was hardly surprising that the critics should be demanding the "details" because they did so even when Freddie was alive. As he kept pointing out to them, he was a musician and his private life was private. They behaved as if he was withholding information to which they had a complete right.
Well, if that's what the critics wanted, they'll have to wait for another movie made with a different purpose, and I can guarantee them that very few of Freddy's fans will go see it. The fans went to Bohemian Rhapsody to participate again in the songs that defined their age. Freddie's sexuality wasn't the key then or now. Somehow, he was more than whom he slept with.
Bohemian Rhapsody is Freddie Mercury and Queen seen from the point of view of the band itself. Band members were not part of his free-flung life outside the band. They had wives and families to occupy them, so there is no necessary reason they would want to explore his lifestyle. They acknowledge it, since Freddie made no particular effort to hide who he was, but they don't dwell on it because the story is the music, the tours, and Live Aid. These are the very things that Freddie himself asked the critics to focus on.
What the fans wanted was a recreation of a time and a particular set of people who played iconic music. This they got in spades. Rami Mallik simply became Freddie. This is only the second time that I've seen the melding of actor and character. The only other actor who convinced me like that was George C Scott becoming General Patton.
Despite the critics, this movie has stirred interest again in a band that was active in the 70s and 80s. I was not a Queen fan at the time. My age was folk music. But after seeing the film, I went out and bought the Platinum Collection of the Best of Queen. I'm quite sure I'm not the only one.
So, critics, from time to time people rebel against you. Please try not to choke on the popcorn as you offer your sneers about things and people that have become icons and are likely to go into history books.
PS: I have advanced degrees in English literature but have read very few Nobel Prize winning authors with anything other than angst. Sometimes critical judgment can be so lofty the writing just doesn't touch the heart.
I use the word "reception" very loosely because the critics, or those who fancy themselves serious critics, did not receive it well at all.
From what I can gather, the critics wanted to see a salacious expose of what they assumed to be Freddie Mercury's sex life. Instead of XXX, they got PG13, however, and they were pissed. They wanted what Bill Maher called "the suck dick" parts. When they didn't get them, they tried to overlook the film, including Rami Mallik's stellar performance, by predicting that the other nominated films were more obvious choices for Oscars.
Clearly, Queen fans did not agree. They turned the movie in a money-making juggernaut, indicating that there was only so much personal detail they wanted to know.
It was hardly surprising that the critics should be demanding the "details" because they did so even when Freddie was alive. As he kept pointing out to them, he was a musician and his private life was private. They behaved as if he was withholding information to which they had a complete right.
Well, if that's what the critics wanted, they'll have to wait for another movie made with a different purpose, and I can guarantee them that very few of Freddy's fans will go see it. The fans went to Bohemian Rhapsody to participate again in the songs that defined their age. Freddie's sexuality wasn't the key then or now. Somehow, he was more than whom he slept with.
Bohemian Rhapsody is Freddie Mercury and Queen seen from the point of view of the band itself. Band members were not part of his free-flung life outside the band. They had wives and families to occupy them, so there is no necessary reason they would want to explore his lifestyle. They acknowledge it, since Freddie made no particular effort to hide who he was, but they don't dwell on it because the story is the music, the tours, and Live Aid. These are the very things that Freddie himself asked the critics to focus on.
What the fans wanted was a recreation of a time and a particular set of people who played iconic music. This they got in spades. Rami Mallik simply became Freddie. This is only the second time that I've seen the melding of actor and character. The only other actor who convinced me like that was George C Scott becoming General Patton.
Despite the critics, this movie has stirred interest again in a band that was active in the 70s and 80s. I was not a Queen fan at the time. My age was folk music. But after seeing the film, I went out and bought the Platinum Collection of the Best of Queen. I'm quite sure I'm not the only one.
So, critics, from time to time people rebel against you. Please try not to choke on the popcorn as you offer your sneers about things and people that have become icons and are likely to go into history books.
PS: I have advanced degrees in English literature but have read very few Nobel Prize winning authors with anything other than angst. Sometimes critical judgment can be so lofty the writing just doesn't touch the heart.
Sunday, January 27, 2019
Voting for Trump: What Did Anyone Really Expect?
If ever there was proof of the idea that insanity is doing the same thing again and expecting a different outcome, it's what has happened after the voters elected Trump.
But what did you Trump voters really expect?
If you wanted him to pay down the national debt, guess again: it's larger than ever.
If you wanted him to bring back jobs to America, guess again: his tariffs are causing more companies to move overseas or to shut down because they can't afford the imports they need to manufacture their own products.
If you wanted him to deal with illegal immigration, guess again: his enterprises have been busy hiring them.
If you wanted him to protect the border, guess again: his solution, a medieval wall (as he calls it), is being sawed through, climbed over, or tunneled under.
If you wanted him to drain the swamp, guess again: the crocodiles are larger and more greedy than ever.
If you wanted him to get the "best" people and take care of you, guess again: a lot of his "bests" are now in jail or headed there, and he's displayed an almost pathologic fascination with the strong and the mighty.
If you thought he could make global warming go away by voiding environmental policies, guess again: If he made like King Canute, set up a throne on the beach, and commanded the tide to stay out, the waves would still crash on him.
So what did you get?
Maybe some balm for your soul. Maybe a chance to blow off some steam? Maybe a chance to air your (legitimate) complaints about how technology has shifted the focus and money to cities? Maybe a chance to complain about how emigrants, legal or otherwise, have undercut what used to be your decent, American, way of life?
I actually get it. I watched a relative's small auto repair business close because the undocumented didn't have overhead and undercut him.
But how has the Trump solution worked for you?
Did you really get a catharsis watching the Coast Guard gratefully getting food from food banks? Did you really feel overjoyed when children were taken from their parents at the border? Did you jump up and down with glee when farmers couldn't get crop projections so they could order seed? Was it exciting when airports had to shut down terminals for lack of staff? Did you shake your fist in the air and say we'll show them when services in your community started to shut down?
Or did you feel diminished, forgotten, and somehow very grubby? And did you start to realize how much the government does to try to help everyone.
And did you find yourself wondering why these rich men with the stranglehold on Congress don't do the obvious--like go after the employers of these illegals?
Well, the reason they don't is pretty obvious also.
These pious plunderers are the very ones profiting from the things that have stolen your jobs.
Please, America, stop using politics as a competitive sport. We don't need more than one Super Bowl. We are all losers if that's the game you are trying to play.
But what did you Trump voters really expect?
If you wanted him to pay down the national debt, guess again: it's larger than ever.
If you wanted him to bring back jobs to America, guess again: his tariffs are causing more companies to move overseas or to shut down because they can't afford the imports they need to manufacture their own products.
If you wanted him to deal with illegal immigration, guess again: his enterprises have been busy hiring them.
If you wanted him to protect the border, guess again: his solution, a medieval wall (as he calls it), is being sawed through, climbed over, or tunneled under.
If you wanted him to drain the swamp, guess again: the crocodiles are larger and more greedy than ever.
If you wanted him to get the "best" people and take care of you, guess again: a lot of his "bests" are now in jail or headed there, and he's displayed an almost pathologic fascination with the strong and the mighty.
If you thought he could make global warming go away by voiding environmental policies, guess again: If he made like King Canute, set up a throne on the beach, and commanded the tide to stay out, the waves would still crash on him.
So what did you get?
Maybe some balm for your soul. Maybe a chance to blow off some steam? Maybe a chance to air your (legitimate) complaints about how technology has shifted the focus and money to cities? Maybe a chance to complain about how emigrants, legal or otherwise, have undercut what used to be your decent, American, way of life?
I actually get it. I watched a relative's small auto repair business close because the undocumented didn't have overhead and undercut him.
But how has the Trump solution worked for you?
Did you really get a catharsis watching the Coast Guard gratefully getting food from food banks? Did you really feel overjoyed when children were taken from their parents at the border? Did you jump up and down with glee when farmers couldn't get crop projections so they could order seed? Was it exciting when airports had to shut down terminals for lack of staff? Did you shake your fist in the air and say we'll show them when services in your community started to shut down?
Or did you feel diminished, forgotten, and somehow very grubby? And did you start to realize how much the government does to try to help everyone.
And did you find yourself wondering why these rich men with the stranglehold on Congress don't do the obvious--like go after the employers of these illegals?
Well, the reason they don't is pretty obvious also.
These pious plunderers are the very ones profiting from the things that have stolen your jobs.
Please, America, stop using politics as a competitive sport. We don't need more than one Super Bowl. We are all losers if that's the game you are trying to play.
Friday, January 18, 2019
On Shutdowns, Politics, Trump, and the Art of the Possible
Today I was rereading my last posts, written in 2017, and was forced to come to the conclusion that absolutely nothing has changed politically in this country, except of course for the length of this current shutdown of the government.
I was writing about Donald Trump then, and I am writing about him now. The major difference, though, is that back in 2017, I was pointing out what he was doing that was foolhardy and predicting what was probably going to be the outcome of it.
Unfortunately, I was right.
Mr. Trump has demonstrated over and over that he does not understand the difference between running a family business, where the worst it can do is go bankrupt, and running a highly complex, intertwined enterprise where the worst it can do it blow up the planet.
He doesn't recognize this because he can't divorce the personal from the professional. That is, he is too motivated by what makes him look good rather than by what is best in the interests of the nation.
Let me explain.
In my opinion, Mr. Trump lacks any concept of balance, an idea critically important to the founding fathers. In a nation of competing special interests, they said it was the role of the government to regulate in the national interest.
This means that any time that the government is hijacked by one set of interests, it cannot fulfill its function. This is a concept that the current occupant of the White House does not understand and is unwilling to learn. He is supposed to be balancing different viewpoints, not subscribing to them (FOX commentators for example).
In a much earlier blog, I wrote about the difference between a corporation and a government. In my mind, the distinction was critical. I think it has something still to say.
My point was that corporations have one major goal: to make money. Making money is something that Mr. Trump understands and is probably one reason he ran for the presidency. Frank Bruni (the NY Times columnist) thinks that Mr. Trump may have seen the presidency as a marketing opportunity.
But corporations don't have to care if they ruin an economy. Their investors do not care if employees and customers are harmed as long as it does not affect the bottom line. Corporations can relocate to somewhere else and the executives get their bonuses as long as they stay profitable. Corporations are answerable to their investors, not the public.
Corporations are also pragmatic. They leave economic planning to the government and will adapt as needed. Corporate self-justifications show that they have an ideology or even a religion, promoting the idea that profit and growth, taken together, is the highest possible good.
They are definitely not whom a nation should want running the country. Evangelical corporations, in fact, are among the strongest and best-funded of the special interests that the founding father cautioned us about.
Ranged against the drive for profit at any cost are what the Greek philosopher Aristotle calls the people (as in the rich will always think the deserve power because the have the money, while the poor think they should because they have the numbers).
The people have their own religion, which promotes the ideals enshrined in the Constitution: equality of opportunity, freedom from persecution, and protections of rights. They want a government that protects them in a number of specific areas: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are the areas that for them, taken together, is the highest good (not forgetting that the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same rights as people, which begs the question of whether corporations can really feel happiness).
Where is the reconciliation of these competing interests? Certainly not in corporate boardrooms where things like health care and education can damage the bottom line. Certainly not in communities where demanding that corporations pay for these services may drive businesses into bankruptcy.
According to the founding fathers, it falls to the government to do the reconciliation. In fact, it is the only place where these interests can be honored and balanced. It is also the only place where the debate can move forward on the basis of fact rather than prejudice and with an eye to the long-term survival of the nation.
OK, you may be thinking impatiently, this wander through history is all well and good, but what does it have to do with the current government shut down?
Here's my take.
Somewhere, some corporate interest is licking its chops for very lucrative contracts to build the wall. Five billion dollars is a very nice bottom line. My suspicion is that promises have been made, deals worked out in advance.
Somewhere, groups representing various constituencies are planning large demonstrations more or less on humanitarian grounds. They are buoyed by the chaos in the immigration system and religious teachings.
Somewhere, groups are encouraging anarchist tendencies and would love to see the government permanently shut down just on principle.
Somewhere, groups of people are choosing sides like the Super Bowl on the basis of pride in adhering to a set of values that are seen as "traditional," hearkening back to an America that once had a frontier.
Ranged against these groups (and there are others) is the fact of a planet that, for whatever reason, is changing and starting to foment the mass migrations that have always been part of the generational factors. Anyone who has had their DNA done knows that these migrations are real and usually unstoppable.
Its hard to see how all these interests and pressures can all be served. The answer is that they can't be. There must be balance and only the government can do it:
Corporations aren't set up to deal with anything larger than their own interests. Humanitarian groups and religions can't because they deal with individuals rather than international governments. Anarchists can't. They just want to blow up the world. Ordinary people can't because they lack power and information.
Rather than the enemy, it would seem that the government is the only thing standing between us and annihilation. So what possible use is there for shutting it down?
If I were Trump, I would do the good old American horse trade. I'd take two or so billion now to get the wall started, negotiate on beefed up surveillance and border patrol as well as a physical barrier,
make sure that the rest of the money was put in successive budgets, and take the high road of getting the government back to work "in the national interest" (and aren't I the greatest president in thinking about the country's needs?)
Of course, he won't, because he thinks he would look "weak." If only he could recognize that he already looks weak and foolish to boot.
It's really too bad that he's brought this on himself and others because he already had a budget deal for the wall and blew it. If politics is the art of the possible, Mr. Trump's politics are the art of the petulant.
Come on, Mr. Trump and your supporters: recognize that winning is cleverly getting what you want in the end, not banging a shoe on the table.
I was writing about Donald Trump then, and I am writing about him now. The major difference, though, is that back in 2017, I was pointing out what he was doing that was foolhardy and predicting what was probably going to be the outcome of it.
Unfortunately, I was right.
Mr. Trump has demonstrated over and over that he does not understand the difference between running a family business, where the worst it can do is go bankrupt, and running a highly complex, intertwined enterprise where the worst it can do it blow up the planet.
He doesn't recognize this because he can't divorce the personal from the professional. That is, he is too motivated by what makes him look good rather than by what is best in the interests of the nation.
Let me explain.
In my opinion, Mr. Trump lacks any concept of balance, an idea critically important to the founding fathers. In a nation of competing special interests, they said it was the role of the government to regulate in the national interest.
This means that any time that the government is hijacked by one set of interests, it cannot fulfill its function. This is a concept that the current occupant of the White House does not understand and is unwilling to learn. He is supposed to be balancing different viewpoints, not subscribing to them (FOX commentators for example).
In a much earlier blog, I wrote about the difference between a corporation and a government. In my mind, the distinction was critical. I think it has something still to say.
My point was that corporations have one major goal: to make money. Making money is something that Mr. Trump understands and is probably one reason he ran for the presidency. Frank Bruni (the NY Times columnist) thinks that Mr. Trump may have seen the presidency as a marketing opportunity.
But corporations don't have to care if they ruin an economy. Their investors do not care if employees and customers are harmed as long as it does not affect the bottom line. Corporations can relocate to somewhere else and the executives get their bonuses as long as they stay profitable. Corporations are answerable to their investors, not the public.
Corporations are also pragmatic. They leave economic planning to the government and will adapt as needed. Corporate self-justifications show that they have an ideology or even a religion, promoting the idea that profit and growth, taken together, is the highest possible good.
They are definitely not whom a nation should want running the country. Evangelical corporations, in fact, are among the strongest and best-funded of the special interests that the founding father cautioned us about.
Ranged against the drive for profit at any cost are what the Greek philosopher Aristotle calls the people (as in the rich will always think the deserve power because the have the money, while the poor think they should because they have the numbers).
The people have their own religion, which promotes the ideals enshrined in the Constitution: equality of opportunity, freedom from persecution, and protections of rights. They want a government that protects them in a number of specific areas: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are the areas that for them, taken together, is the highest good (not forgetting that the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same rights as people, which begs the question of whether corporations can really feel happiness).
Where is the reconciliation of these competing interests? Certainly not in corporate boardrooms where things like health care and education can damage the bottom line. Certainly not in communities where demanding that corporations pay for these services may drive businesses into bankruptcy.
According to the founding fathers, it falls to the government to do the reconciliation. In fact, it is the only place where these interests can be honored and balanced. It is also the only place where the debate can move forward on the basis of fact rather than prejudice and with an eye to the long-term survival of the nation.
OK, you may be thinking impatiently, this wander through history is all well and good, but what does it have to do with the current government shut down?
Here's my take.
Somewhere, some corporate interest is licking its chops for very lucrative contracts to build the wall. Five billion dollars is a very nice bottom line. My suspicion is that promises have been made, deals worked out in advance.
Somewhere, groups representing various constituencies are planning large demonstrations more or less on humanitarian grounds. They are buoyed by the chaos in the immigration system and religious teachings.
Somewhere, groups are encouraging anarchist tendencies and would love to see the government permanently shut down just on principle.
Somewhere, groups of people are choosing sides like the Super Bowl on the basis of pride in adhering to a set of values that are seen as "traditional," hearkening back to an America that once had a frontier.
Ranged against these groups (and there are others) is the fact of a planet that, for whatever reason, is changing and starting to foment the mass migrations that have always been part of the generational factors. Anyone who has had their DNA done knows that these migrations are real and usually unstoppable.
Its hard to see how all these interests and pressures can all be served. The answer is that they can't be. There must be balance and only the government can do it:
Corporations aren't set up to deal with anything larger than their own interests. Humanitarian groups and religions can't because they deal with individuals rather than international governments. Anarchists can't. They just want to blow up the world. Ordinary people can't because they lack power and information.
Rather than the enemy, it would seem that the government is the only thing standing between us and annihilation. So what possible use is there for shutting it down?
If I were Trump, I would do the good old American horse trade. I'd take two or so billion now to get the wall started, negotiate on beefed up surveillance and border patrol as well as a physical barrier,
make sure that the rest of the money was put in successive budgets, and take the high road of getting the government back to work "in the national interest" (and aren't I the greatest president in thinking about the country's needs?)
Of course, he won't, because he thinks he would look "weak." If only he could recognize that he already looks weak and foolish to boot.
It's really too bad that he's brought this on himself and others because he already had a budget deal for the wall and blew it. If politics is the art of the possible, Mr. Trump's politics are the art of the petulant.
Come on, Mr. Trump and your supporters: recognize that winning is cleverly getting what you want in the end, not banging a shoe on the table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
