Justice, Justice Shall Ye Seek

A citizen worth emulating [1]

The title above is the first line of Deuteronomy 16:20, yo. Biblical text, the original intent of the framers — Justice, justice shall you pursue. Which would you rather pursue as a life’s goal, fairness or unfairness? Doesn’t take an ancient mystic, or the exhortations of a holy book, to help you work out this uncomplicated riddle.

Unless, of course, you benefit tremendously from institutionalized unfairness, in which case, you can forgive yourself for calling it “Liberty” and creating a worldview centered on the inviolable right of the individual to do whatever she wants with her wealth, outside of things like steal, murder and rape, of course, actual, legally defined stealing and murder the law will hold you accountable for and rape that you can actually lead to your prosecution and jailing. Outside of actual rape and murder, survival of the most liberty-loving! We have a dominant (if demographically doomed) political party that now explicitly stands for this worldview.

One of the last dissents of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s long, principled life (possibly the last, as far as I’m aware) was a plain-spoken and clear-eyed analysis of the problems with the narrow legal reasoning used by a 5-4 minority to restrict voting in Wisconsin during a pandemic. The dissent was the first writing by the Notorious RBG that I recall reading, not long before the end of her remarkable life, and I was very impressed. Clearly written, clearly reasoned, laying out, in a few broad strokes, the human story deleted from Boof Kavanaugh’s nakedly partisan “narrow legal” attempt to help his party attain a slight electoral edge in the justice game.

Reading Kavanaugh’s ruling, in which he took the dissent to task (unconvincingly) for being “quite wrong on several counts” (his telltale childishness is never long concealed) and claiming (falsely) that he’d taken COVID-19 into full consideration (along with the fact, never mentioned by Boof, that thousands of Wisconsin voters had not even received ballots in time to mail them in by the deadline), you’d never know that two federal courts had ruled, in light of the pandemic, postal delays and the Republican state legislature’s refusal to allow modifications to the primary election schedule, that it was reasonable to allow a few extra days for mail-in ballots to arrive and be counted. In Kavanaugh’s view, the question was a narrow, strict question of law, to be applied mechanically and unemotionally (and, by total coincidence, for the perceived benefit of his political party). He was dead wrong, “quite wrong” in fact, but, you know, he had the four other Federalist Society votes to make his will the final unappealable 5-4 ruling on the matter.

“Five to four, suck it!” is not democracy. “51-49, fuck you, losers,” is not democracy. An extraordinarily bold and historically brazen insertion of a sixth vote to make the Supreme Court an unappealable six-three right-wing, (51-49 suck it, cucks), majority is, while worthy of Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, Hermann Goering and friends, not democracy.

The death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and her immediate rushed replacement by a religious cult member true believer in the causes dearest to the hearts of the extreme right, underscores that a nine person partisan Supreme Court is no longer a viable option for preserving American democracy.

That the rights of millions of Americans may hang in the balance of who is the deciding vote, Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Amy Coney Barrett, is an anti-democratic tragedy we must not endure. There are powerful federal Courts of Appeal with many more than nine judges ruling by 5-4 majority. There’s no reason, nor any need for a Constitutional amendment, not to expand the number of Supreme Court justices to 15, or 25. Form a bipartisan commission to approve the new candidates. Have a court where the opinions of one, two or even six party-line judges does not mean the difference between a century of our fellow Americans having “no rights a white person is bound to respect” and a court whose watchword is Justice, justice shall you pursue.

You know that for the good of us all, and our hope of preserving what’s left of our beautiful natural world, justice is a much better goal than an unappealable “6-3, suck it, loser.”

[1] wow, this looked much better on my phone’s tiny screen. Blown up I can see how sloppy it is! Sorry about that.

 

Share and share alike

Years ago a friend asked me to rewrite his parents’ wills to make sure his newborn daughter was added by name. His parents were happy to do this, I went to meet them. Reading the two short documents they already had I noted one serious flaw — the signature of the attorney, by wild coincidence, in addition to being scrawled in the same eccentrically blue-green ink as the witness signatures, was in the exact same handwriting as the signatures of the two witnesses to the will. When I pointed this out to them they smiled at me, and at each other, and told me fondly what a lovely man their now deceased lawyer was. Each will was an otherwise standard will, except for a phrase I really enjoyed. The assets not otherwise spoken for above were to be divided among the grandchildren equally, “to share and share alike”. I made sure to retain the phrase in my rewrite of the wills.

Share and share alike is a formula for avoiding conflict. There’s one less big reason to fight if we share everything fairly. Most people I know have this impulse. When you cook and put the food on the plate, or slice a cake, you try to give the same portion to everyone at the table (unless somebody indicates they want a smaller portion). When Sekhnet and I were domesticating the Feral Five this summer, we both reflexively did the same thing: made sure they all knew they’d get the same food, attention and playtime as all the others. One kitten would start eating, the others quickly learned that within a moment they’d have their own bowl in front of them. When giving them treats, each one got the same amount tossed to them and there was almost never stealing or attempts at hoarding. There was little anxiety or any reason for competition for these things because they shared and shared alike. It seems pretty clear that this is the fair way to divide things — share and share alike. It’s a basic philosophical stance, it seems to me– that everyone should get, to the extent possible, the basics that they need to live with safety and dignity, particularly in a place where others have a thousand, or a million times, what they need.

I think about that, in our gilded age of Inequality with its insane, often lauded, greed and — in an environment of the artificially enforced scarcity, the glorification of the “winners” of our natural “competition”. Our greatest citizens are not those who learned to “share and share alike” they are the audacious ones who learned to grab, and bring lawsuits against others like them, dominate the competition, take it all.

The supremely entitled twat who runs Facebook? One of the greediest fucks on earth, and supremely destructive in his limitless greed and arrogance, but– hey, don’t knock what he’s accomplished! Bill Gates? Arguably a slick monopolist at one time (with the lawsuits to prove it) but today one of our greatest philanthropist, although he is the ultimate expert on everything and determines precisely how his donations are spent (he always knows best, after all), and rightfully so, he’s about the smartest man in the world, as demonstrated by his vast, hard-earned fortune. But who am I to judge these great men so harshly? What fortune have I amassed? The People rest!

There is no downside in America to super-sized greed and hoarding — no matter how obscene — if you are a success. Our greediest and most avaricious [1] citizens are seen as the best of us by most of us — a kind of natural aristocracy in American life. Sekhnet doesn’t disagree when I snarl at the seemingly insane greed of a Jeff Bezos (not that she likes my frequent snarling), but she also loves the innovations in convenient shopping he’s made possible and defends the sick fuck, at least for the excellence of his genius instant-gratification delivery service. Bezos, I note, never leaves a penny on the table when he can grab it for himself.

It seems to me that once you’ve amassed, say, a $100,000,000,000 personal fortune, you can afford to stop obsessively snatching up every penny in sight. It’s probably safe to allow your hardworking employees to form a union, let’s say, or to have certain benefits at work (like bathroom breaks), a work site that is as close to a modern day salt mine as exists in our enlightened nation. For Jeff “Democracy Dies in Darkness” Bezos, it’s the principle of the thing. A penny left on the table, or in a mere employee’s hand, is a sin. A fucking sin!

I imagine that in the childhood homes of every supremely greedy acquisitor (often wealthy homes) there was an ethic (false, of course) of “zero entitlement” and of “working to earn everything you get.” “Share and share alike” was considered a recipe for losers. Fred Koch made his boys literally fight it out for his approval. The young Koch brothers punched each other in the face, and Fred was all for this manly vying over who was the most ambitious, the fittest to survive and therefore the most entitled to inherit oversight of his fortune.

Think of young Donald, with his charismatic, much older brother getting so much of daddy’s attention and praise — until the brother broke his father’s heart by showing himself much less ruthless than necessary to run an empire. Young Donald, fourth pup in the litter of five, angry, spoiled, entitled, bullying, acting out, fledging rich young juvenile delinquent, was then sent to military academy in an unsuccessful attempt to make a mensch out of him as Frederick Christ Trump groomed the young narcissist to become Trump.

Back to the opposite of these types and share and share alike. What is wrong with share and share alike as a view of life between siblings, life in a community? One thing that pops out of the American/Puritan myth — if you always get what you need, where is the incentive to create wealth, to dominate and become “great”?

Greatness, in the capitalist ethic, means constant expansion — continual growth of the enterprise, of profits, of wealth. Success is measured in immensity of expansion and the scope of your personal dominance. That’s why you can rape the earth as much as you want (as long as their is no priggish progress-hating government nanny there to coerce you and force you to stop) if the end result is being the richest man on the planet you murdered.

You want to raise children who are less susceptible to jealousy and corruption? Teach them to share and share alike, by your fair example. The alternative is what we are living in now: Betsey DeVos as the Secretary of Making Education An Earned Right Again as Christ Himself teaches.

[1]

I use, employ and deploy this synonym for greedy (note this is greed for wealth and material gain, as opposed to simple greed) in a nod to the pettifogger’s habit of stating and restating, reiterating and repeating, the obvious, the plain, the too clear to need clarification, the open and shut, in as many words and variations as possible, to cover every contingency, circumstance, event, foreseen and unforeseen, every possibility, in this world or any conceivable world. I learned that this laughable, risible, ridiculous habit derives from the age when we used to use scriveners, men with excellent handwriting, to write our legal papers. These weasels were paid by the word, hence the endless series of qualifiers, synonyms, distinguishing marks, clarifiers, the ostentatious, overbearing, absurdly ornate and, frankly, wordy restatements of the same thing:

Good summary and analysis of Trumpism

I’ve been trying to take a break from this creature, our mad president, think about something a little deeper than this sad and destructive man’s desperate need to be the most important angry two year-old in the world. It’s hard to do, especially since he can still, literally, blow up the world and there’s really nothing that can stop him (as he prioritizes the federal executions of several black men and a heavily medicated mentally ill woman who was serially raped for her entire childhood). We learn that he had the insane conspiracist Sidney Powell back to the White House Sunday night, for Kraken’s sake. He has shown over and over that he is capable of unspeakable things in the service of his damaged ego.

Because history fascinates me, I listen to a couple of history-based podcasts. One I rarely miss is Robert Evans’ “Behind the Bastards” a gleeful telling of the stories of some of history’s most repulsive and destructive creatures. Evans recently featured Roy Cohn, a peach, and Robert Welch, intellectual force behind the John Birch Society, and the other moral godfather (along with Cohn) of Donald Trump. The Welch/John Birch Society episodes, along with an excellent documentary on Showtime about this great entertainer:

once again made this connection for me:

Robert Welch, the candy tycoon who along with Charles Koch’s father Fred and a few other extreme “libertarian” types, founded the John Birch Society in 1958 (galvanized by the “activist” Supreme Court ruling that segregation was unconstitutional).   These extreme right wing conspiracy theorists were considered an embarrassing lunatic fringe by other Republicans throughout my childhood. Their unapologetically extremist candidate, Barry Goldwater, lost in a landslide in 1964.   Then Reagan (who got 489 of 538 Electoral College votes in 1980!!) embraced and normalized a core of their belief system (particularly when it came to racism, wealth and Communism) for his fellow Republicans. Then we had Gingrich, Cheney, Barr and co. et, voila! — the current Republican party. Under this Orange Menace, we have a full-blown John Birch Society Republican party marching in lockstep, menacing traitors in their midst, as their kind always does… No conspiracy too wild for America! Democrats rape children and drink their blood, take that to the bank, losers. A testament to the staying power of big “ideas”…

Now, to the title of this post. A friend sent me a recent article from the Atlantic, an excellent post mortem on Trumpism, which, like a super zombie from a low-rent horror movie, is unlikely to ever truly die. Here are a couple of insights from the author, George Packer. He mentions LBJ’s lie about the Gulf of Tonkin “incident” (to justify escalation of the American war against Vietnam) and Nixon’s trying to cover up the Watergate break-in as examples of standard presidential lies.

But these cases of presidential lying came from a time when the purpose was limited and rational: to cover up a scandal, make a disaster disappear, mislead the public in service of a particular goal. In a sense, Americans expected a degree of fabrication from their leaders. After Jimmy Carter, in his 1976 campaign, promised, “I’ll never lie to you,” and then pretty much kept his word, voters sent him back to Georgia. Ronald Reagan’s gauzy fictions were far more popular.

Trump’s lies were different. They belonged to the postmodern era. They were assaults against not this or that fact, but reality itself. They spread beyond public policy to invade private life, clouding the mental faculties of everyone who had to breathe his air, dissolving the very distinction between truth and falsehood. Their purpose was never the conventional desire to conceal something shameful from the public. He was stunningly forthright about things that other presidents would have gone to great lengths to keep secret: his true feelings about Senator John McCain and other war heroes; his eagerness to get rid of disloyal underlings; his desire for law enforcement to protect his friends and hurt his enemies; his effort to extort a foreign leader for dirt on a political adversary; his affection for Kim Jong Un and admiration for Vladimir Putin; his positive view of white nationalists; his hostility toward racial and religious minorities; and his contempt for women.

…So a stab-in-the-back narrative was buried in the minds of millions of Americans, where it burns away, as imperishable as a carbon isotope, consuming whatever is left of their trust in democratic institutions and values. This narrative will widen the gap between Trump believers and their compatriots who might live in the same town, but a different universe. And that was Trump’s purpose—to keep us locked in a mental prison where reality was unknowable so that he could go on wielding power, whether in or out of office, including the power to destroy.

…For his opponents, the lies were intended to be profoundly demoralizing. Neither counting them nor checking facts nor debunking conspiracies made any difference. Trump demonstrated again and again that the truth doesn’t matter. In rational people this provoked incredulity, outrage, exhaustion, and finally an impulse to crawl away and abandon the field of politics to the fantasists.


For believers, the consequences were worse. They surrendered the ability to make basic judgments about facts, exiling themselves from the common framework of self-government. They became litter swirling in the wind of any preposterous claim that blew from @realDonaldTrump. Truth was whatever made the world whole again by hurting their enemies—the more far-fetched, the more potent and thrilling. After the election, as charges of voter fraud began to pile up, Matthew Sheffield, a reformed right-wing media activist, tweeted: “Truth for conservative journalists is anything that harms ‘the left.’ It doesn’t even have to be a fact. Trump’s numerous lies about any subject under the sun are thus justified because his deceptions point to a larger truth: that liberals are evil.”

source

And, as Dear Leader Mr. Trump himself once famously said: God bless these United Shayyysssh…

Trailer for Kayla (attempted post)

A quick peek at a how-to watercolor video I made for a very bright and creative kid, locked down in NJ.

Got to hand it to the cleverly, obsessively monetizing little fucks … only a hundred bucks or so (they’ve already reminded me my “shopping cart” contains items for which I have not yet authorized credit card payment) to show you this colorful 11 second video clip. Why not? This is America, after all!

Here, have a quick GIF instead (it’s free!)

Persistent little bastards.

Science Fiction Trump-style

Embarrassing and frustrating as it is to live in a nation where 74,000,000 votes were cast by citizens who wanted to reelect the worst president in US history, a man we benignly refer to as a transactional narcissist (and even a malignant narcissist), and as inured as I am to it, mostly, sometimes an item in the news just hammers me in the face. There was the recent revelation of a massive Russian hack of American government and businesses (Pompeo announced it was Russia, Trump tweeted “fake news” it was probably China, LOL!), the lie immediately told by Trump’s recently inserted loyal appointees at the Department of Defense about an “agreement” to suspend national security briefings with the Biden transition team (for the Christmas break), the Senate majority’s partisan refusal to provide help for tens of millions of suffering Americans as Merry Christmas 2020, and a tidal wave of American homelessness, approaches (while Mitch and friends doggedly fight for more corporate Christmas gifts), our steady, upward succession of new, daily world records for COVID-19 infections and deaths (as emails come out that deliberate infection of millions was Trump’s plan all along), our raging president is delusional in his bunker, still wildly insisting all this news is complete bullshit. I digested all that, to the extent one can. Then, a nonchalant hammer to the old face:

On Friday, we learn, Trump had Mike “Lock Her UP!” Flynn and his insane attorney Sidney Powell at the White House (with demented Trump dead-ender Rudy Giuliani participating by phone) for a powwow on how to keep Trump in power in spite of a pesky election loss of over 7,000,000 votes (and a 74 vote Electoral College margin) and no path remaining through the courts or Congress.

General Flynn, you will recall, was fired (with regret, by Mr. Trump) for lying to Mike Pence about illegal contacts with the Russians and then was prosecuted and admitted guilt in federal court, for repeating that lie to the FBI and a couple of other little white lies he needed to tell in order to get security clearance for his job as National Security Adviser. But otherwise, a fine and upstanding patriotic American hero! Trump always says what a good guy Flynn is. He ought to know.

Sidney Powell, you may recall, took over Flynn’s federal case and sought to have his guilty plea thrown out. Working closely with Bill Barr, her collaboration with the Bagpiper led to Barr withdrawing the charges against Flynn (Flynn’s several lies, Barr decided, were “immaterial” and therefore non-criminal — the real criminals were the partisan liars at the FBI who illegally trapped him into lying). Barr attempted to have the case dismissed without allowing the judge to hold a hearing before dismissing the case (the law allows a judge to hold a hearing if he’s not satisfied by the papers submitted). Barr and Powell insisted the judge instantly dismiss the case, as a matter of law. When the judge refused they sought a writ of mandamus, an extremely rare form of relief only given when no other legal avenue remains, to force the judge to dismiss the case against Flynn, along with his two guilty pleas. They got the writ, from a Trump appointee, on shamelessly partisan quasi-legal grounds (judge was trying to unconstitutionally “usurp” presidential power by demanding legal reasons for dismissing the case) that were overturned immediately when the judge appealed her ruling.

With a hearing on the horizon, in which DOJ lawyers would have to explain the dirty-looking, unusual DOJ about-face in suddenly hurrying to let the president’s pal off the hook, Trump pardoned Flynn unconditionally. Flynn immediately repaid this quid with his pro quo, giving fiery speeches, peppered with QAnon shout outs, about Trump’s greatness and the need to keep him in power no matter what millions of (colored fuckers, ugly women, lazy poor people, homosexuals, abortionists, elite child-molesting cannibals, fucking Commies and other) anti-American freedom-haters might think about it. Flynn is a good guy, remember, one of the best people Trump has ever collected, and certainly very loyal to the president.

Meanwhile, QAnon spouting attorney Sidney Powell, who threatened to release a biblical “kraken” [1] of a lawsuit to bring the entire fraudulent election and the vast blood-drinking, child raping cannibal conspiracy to steal Trump’s presidency crashing down, was fired by Trump’s campaign for being too insane even for them. Like all the other election lawsuits Team Trump brought, Powell’s were dismissed as baseless, releasing the mythical kraken, it turned out, was all in her fevered imagination. She was finally deemed too fucking crazy to be part of even this lunatic squad of suicide bomber Trump lawyers and was publicly renounced by Giuliani, who is something of an expert on lunatic suicide bomber Trump lawyering.

Powell still appeared regularly on right wing TV and internet shows, but only the most gullible and enraged took any of her raving seriously. Mike Flynn began calling for Trump to impose martial law and stay in power, claiming martial law had been declared 64 times and was nothing out of the ordinary.

Friday:

Makes sense, no? Appoint batshit crazy partisan Sidney Powell as “Special Counsel” (really, really special) to get to the bottom of this vast conspiracy, involving not only Trump haters everywhere but (and here’s the devilishness of this sick, dangerous anti-Trump conspiracy) every judge (including many Trump appointees) who heard every case related to Trump’s effort to overturn the election. Speaking of batshit crazy:

The New York Times added, because they are the best at this sort of touch:

A White House spokesman, Ms. Powell and a spokeswoman for Mr. Giuliani did not respond to requests for comment.

I ask you, fellow citizens, why would they respond? To the lying New York Times? Are you friggin’ serious?

Look at the crap they see fit to print!

[1]

The kraken is a legendary sea monster of gigantic size and cephalopod-like appearance in Scandinavian folklore. According to the Norse sagas, the kraken dwells off the coasts of Norway and Greenland and terrorizes nearby sailors. 

Wikipedia

Reservoir of Rage — and Silence

Rage is a famously difficult subject, which is why I’m trying to take some ways of expressing it one at a time. Reframing, for example, is an essential technique for angrily dominating someone in an argument. Silence, in the face of a friend or family member’s expressed concern, or in answer to a direct request for a conversation, is one of the most potent weapons in the war of rage. It has the virtues of being subtle and deniable (there are MANY reasons for silence), but it is also highly effective, dramatic and deadly, in my experience.

Silence can be a great blessing, of course, like when an overbearingly loud noise finally stops. When quiet descends we feel our breathing calm, we can focus and concentrate. Silence (as opposed to blurting something) can often be very useful when confronted with vexation, it gives you time to gather yourself, deliberate and react more productively. Silence is golden, as those prone to uttering cliches will sometimes say in a quiet moment.

Silence can also be used as the ultimate, uninterruptible, elegant last word in a spasm of rage. One obvious beauty of using deathly silence this way, (to the practitioner), is that it’s the anger expression technique that keeps giving, the silence will continue to irk the other person until they can forget about it and the meaning of the silence itself can always be debated, ill will denied vehemently.

Silence is just silence, the practitioner will insist if confronted, though it might feel like the “silent treatment” to an oversensitive eternal victim type. “… and, you know, though it might well be possible that my silence actually does express my utter contempt for you, you overweening baby, you will always get an unwinnable argument from me about why you are totally wrong to construe it that way. It’s just silence… no meaning to it whatsoever, it’s all inside your messed up head… and typical of you to blame me for the outpourings of your corroded imagination.”

The genius part of this defense is that it’s often true — people fail to respond for many reasons, including being busy, distracted, overwhelmed, truly not knowing what to say. I used to be offended when I heard nothing back from friends I’d send random bits of gratuitous creativity to. Now I understand there is no intention to be hurtful — most people have no experience with a need to feel creative and simply don’t know what to say when someone sends them a thirty second bit of original music. Musicians know that “nice” is a perfectly satisfying reply if they like the thing, but, most people feel overmatched to respond to a drawing sent out of the blue, an incoherent bit of calligraphy, a poem, or whatever the fucking thing is. “Nice” seems mechanical, I guess, something original probably seems in order, and what to actually say to someone who insists on “sharing”– I have no idea.

For our purposes here I am talking about the silence that is a refusal to speak, after being asked to. If you ever experienced this kind of bruising silence, you know what I’m struggling to bring out here.

It is an integral part of the game of rage to always have an argument ready to justify your anger and the actions it caused you to take. (The passive voice, we note, is always good in this case: righteous anger caused me to do this, it was clearly not my choice to be so provoked by you, asshole!)

The argument an angry person makes doesn’t need to be sound or have any chance of prevailing based on what actually took place, the only point is to contest the other person’s right to their feelings. Anger is a zero-sum game — one winner (innocent, 100% right), one loser (infuriating asshole, 100% wrong.) It’s an angry fool’s reductive way of looking at life, but there it is.

This readiness to fight, and the devilish quickness to justify any harsh action, are hallmarks of the perpetually angry person. That raging reflex to deny, no matter what, is what is so infuriating about people addicted to that intoxicating surge of righteousness anger provides. Compulsive Contrarians will fight you angrily, out of an insatiable need to fight, no matter what the cost, to the death and beyond.

To be clear about the kind of anger I’m talking about, it is an unyielding reflex to remain angry and to win the fight. We all experience anger, it is an inevitable part of our condition here as humans. Unfairness, disappointment, bad luck all make us mad. A mark of maturity is being able to keep these things in perspective, to learn to fix what we can and not dwell forever on everything that makes us angry.

The kind of anger that demands the regular harsh punishment of others is an attitude toward life. It hardens into a stance of eternal grievance, a much different, more destructive force than what is released when we sometimes get pissed off at the ordinary frustrations we all have to deal with.

Martin Luther King Jr. famously said “forgiveness is not an occasional act, it is a permanent attitude.” We need to be ready to forgive, when the time is right, we have to stay receptive to another person trying to make amends — hence, the permanent attitude. Being ready to accept an apology is a philosophical stance. The same goes for letting go of, or holding on to, anger. We can stay focused on a grievance forever, and act accordingly, or learn to repair what we can and coexist with things that enrage us but that we can do little about, without being mad and ready to fight all the time.

Back to the angry use of silence in situations where dialogue is needed. Political examples of this, the brazen refusal to honestly answer a straight question, for example, are ubiquitous. No point to cite specific cases, there are too many every day, every hour, to start naming. Besides, our current political idiocy is too sickening and bringing it into the discussion is a distraction that will take us off course. I’ll stick to the personal here, keep it clean and straightforward, in hopes of making a point worth making.

The epoch we’re living in now is a worldwide Age of Anger, (or Age of Rage, if ya like a rhyme on yer page) to an extent not seen on this scale in almost a century. Since we’re all forced into offense so much of the time, by news designed to make us angry (and watch the ads [1]), it is best to see anger as the personal thing it always is. Anger is personal, totally, for every person who feels it.

Working to understand our own relationship to our personal anger, and what specifically makes us mad, is probably the best we can do, and a first step toward making our own lives, and the lives of those around us, less contentious. It’s also one of the hardest things to do, especially if you’re prone to getting pissed off. We live in a world of constant provocation at a historical moment when the dial is turned up to 10 all day long (and all through the night).

Here are a couple of examples of angry uses of silence from my life, as succinctly as I can lay them out (I’ve written about each of these vexing kerfuffles here when they happened.)

Let’s recognize first that silence can have different meanings, depending on how we were raised. These meanings determine our feelings about silence and our sensitivity to it. In some households silence may be a proper initial response to a perplexing question. It can indicate respect, the person is thinking deeply about your question and will give a considered opinion after they have thought things through. In another home you’ll be taught that silence as a reply means “never,” the silence about your expressed concern will go on until the next time you bring it up, when it will be answered by an identical pointed silence and so forth, ad infinitum.

Nobody who expresses a concern likes to be ignored (nobody that I’ve ever met, anyway). It is a cruel thing to do to a child (or a person of any age, actually). It amounts to neglecting them emotionally by ignoring their fears, desires, questions and concerns. Is it as cruel as daily beatings, making the child go to bed hungry, humiliating the kid publicly? That depends on how diligently silence by way of response is wielded.

In my own life I’ve come to understand, as a fairly old man, that what I thought of as my father’s relentless cruelty (he made very effective use of strategic silence as a weapon) was in large part his relentless inability to do any better than he did. He was the victim of unspeakable abuse in a home ravaged by poverty, ignorance and rage. He did the best he could, I understood finally, though his best did a good deal of damage. This understanding of my father’s helplessness against his pain and anger came only after a lot of pain and conflict in my own life. My eventual understanding of his limitations erased virtually none of it, but it makes the world make much more sense to me.

As he was dying my father made a seemingly incomprehensible request, asking me to understand that, in a real sense, our long war was “nothing personal”. I thought about this Zen koan for a long time before its meaning emerged. His mistreatment of me had nothing to do with me personally — he would have done the same thing to any child of his, no matter who he or she had been. He was reiterating what he’d said earlier that last night of his life: it had been him, not me, who created most of the intractable problems between us. Our endless war had little to do with me personally.

If I was traumatized, as a young kid, to suddenly learn about the Nazi death machine, by seeing black and white film clips of a guy wheeling a wheelbarrow of jiggling skeletons and dumping them into a pit of corpses (an image that caused me to vomit), and agitatedly asked my father about it, what did I really expect him to say? He was not emotionally equipped to say what he probably wished he had:

“You saw some of the most horrible images in human history and you’re asking a terrible question that the greatest minds in the world can’t really answer. You’ll learn about racism, scapegoating, the terrible violence angry mobs are capable of when whipped up by hate-filled maniacs. You’re right to be upset, especially at age eight when you have no way to put any of this into context. I’m sorry you saw those clips that I tried to spare you from seeing, I know you can’t unsee them, but believe me, a lot of the horror you’re feeling right now will start to fade pretty soon. We humans are very adaptable, you’ll feel much better tomorrow, I guarantee. I understand why you vomited, you were right to vomit. You’re safe now, and we can talk more about this later. As you have questions, just ask and I’ll do my best to explain what I can.”

Instead, frustrated and overwhelmed, my father snapped that he’d warned me not to see that goddamned movie, forbade me, in fact, but I never fucking listen to him, that I’m a drama queen always trying to claim a special right to feel like a victim. He told me angrily that just because many members of our family died (people he referred to as “mere abstractions!”) at the hands of Nazis and their helpers, it gave me no special right to feel in any way like a holocaust survivor, and so on.

He was overwhelmed, upset, not at his best, would have felt shame if I played a recording of what he had said to “console” his young son. Obviously he’d much rather have said something along the lines of the more humane response I set out above. On the bright side for him, it was years before I asked again about the slaughter of at least 15 great aunts and uncles and their entire extended families.

You grow up, reach an understanding of things that hurt you and hope to do much better yourself treating other people well. As Hillel said: what is hateful to you, don’t do to others. As you also learn — it is best to avoid people who can’t do this.

If you send a professional writer friend a piece you talked about, something you hope to publish, pages he said he’d be happy to read and comment on, and you never hear back? Shades of that hurtful silence, especially after two or three follow-ups when you still don’t hear back from him. In the end, if the guy claims you’re the asshole for being upset after only three or four tries for feedback, that anyone but a schmuck would have persisted, that, in fact, he probably did read the piece, likely even replied at the time (it made no impression on him either way, understand) you know the story with him. It’s not personal, in a true sense.

If an old friend offers legal help with a painful legal situation you find yourself entangled in and winds up playing devil’s advocate throughout the aggravating weeks and months, then loses his temper a few times that you keep getting upset, then apologizes, but later feels compelled to tell you he only apologized because you are such an irrationally angry person that groveling was the only way he could get you to calm down — you have learned who your old friend is, on a primal level. He operates within a very narrow empathetic bandwidth, to put it charitably. When he claims to have carefully considered every point you raised about the sad pass things have come to, while responding to none of them (and insisting he’s still been given no clue), his hurt silence is predictable, and finally welcome.

On down the line, I have other examples from my own life but I think the point is made. Again, as the sage Hillel told the man challenging him to put his Jewish faith into a single sentence: what is hateful to you don’t do to someone else. We all know what is hateful to us. It’s a good principle to try our best not do it to others. When we know we’ve failed, we should be quick to express our genuine regret.

When you know your personal kryptonite (in my case silence wielded as a final response to an expressed concern) all you can do is tell the people in your life, when you feel them doing that, YOW! THAT SHIT IS MY KRYPTONITE, please don’t wave it near my face! When they know what hurts you most, they have the final choice about whether they will deploy it against you or not. They will decide what the silence at the end means.

Almost never is that silence the blessed kind that restores calm, unless they are silently figuring out how to take care of another person’s hurt feelings and are going to get back to you.

At the same time, with deathlike silence there is something healthy and refreshing about the way the ugly noise finally stops. In fact, there are few things better, when things have already turned ugly, than the peace that comes when somebody who sincerely doesn’t know how to treat people finally shuts the fuck up.

[1]

Thought for a future post:

The mass media has long known that “if it bleeds, it leads”– all the research has shown executives that a larger audience will tune in to breaking news about violence, murder, mayhem, teased loudly in an alarming headline. The more recent refinement to this theory was among Mark Zuckerberg’s great innovations in monetizing the universal human desire for connection: rage is contagious, spreads like wildfire and there’s fucking GOLD IN THEM THAR FUCKING HILLS!!!

Speaking of rage and gratuitous best-selling violence, I would love to punch that particular noxious piece of shit in his smug, grotesquely monetized face. I’m pretty sure Mark would like it, too. And if not, it will be nothing personal, I assure you.

Evil Morons and “Herd Mentality”

The story is now out, with details (and documentary evidence), about how Mr. Trump and his unqualified appointees chosen for their unquestioning personal loyalty to the tyrannical asshat from Queens (along with their skill at stroking his delicate ego), continually lied about their efforts to control the deadly pandemic that is now raging out of control in the US.

The Trump administration’s regular attacks on the pandemic mitigation advice given by all medical experts were apparently motivated by their united embrace of an alternative “theory” (remember “Birtherism” is also a theory, as is “Libertarianism”) about how to beat the pandemic: infect everyone to bring about herd immunity (or “herd mentality” as a Trump Freudian slip rendered it on live TV).

Stupid people blindly ambitious and loyal to the stupidest, vainest, most vindictive man ever to be president, deliberately pursued a strategy of mass infection. Mass infection with a deadly, highly contagious disease science currently has no cure for. Because, you know, politics, power, prestige, career, obscene, untouchable wealth, DUH!

We set new records yesterday here in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, for infections and deaths from this monster, COVID-19. As reported in the Lyin’ New York Times (official enemy of the people):

Officials across the United States on Wednesday reported the highest daily number for new coronavirus since the pandemic began, as well as the most deaths in a single day.

New infections were put at 244,365, and deaths at 3,607 — nearly 500 more than the record set only a week ago. The previous case record, 236,800, was set last Friday (though a reporting anomaly in Texas made it appear still higher.)

The latest figures capped day [sic] on which health experts warned Americans, buoyed by the rollout of a vaccination campaign, that it is far too soon to abandon common-sense precautions for halting the spread of the virus.

source

Now we know, with emails in their own words, to confirm our worst suspicions, that these imbeciles appointed by our petulant blob of unaccountable presidential prerogative actually pursued a secret, deliberate mass infection agenda. These accursed cretins actually wrote to each other spelling out their master plan to ignore science and let the vast majority of Americans go for broke.

I am not trying to insult unintelligent people, there are many who are kind, gentle, generous, loving. Intelligence, goodness and decency have no direct correlation. Many very smart people are vicious pieces of shit (Bill Barr pops to mind, though he may also be mentally ill [1]). The kinds of supremely ambitious idiots I have in mind are those who are just smart enough to know how to ingratiate themselves to corrupt and powerful idiots who will lavishly reward them with unearned positions of power and prestige far beyond their competence (Betsy DeVos, honey, I’m seeing your dazzling smile).

Someone observed recently, comparing increasingly foolish and deluded highly placed Trump dead-enders to high Nazi officials, that few would have had any chance of promotion except in a regime where blind loyalty to a barking mad leader, and the ability to shamelessly gratify The Leader’s ego, were the chief prerequisites for advancement. Trump does not have the best people. He does not even seem to have average people.

Now, the reservoir of rage inside threatens to overflow its banks and wash over me. I read about these stupid bastards and their blind, murderous idiocy and it fills me with anger, and despair over the cultivated stupidity of millions of my fellow Americans — and an individual’s powerless to have any effect on any of this.

An election cannot change any of these ugly facts. Not when the national leaders of the party that won the election keep expressing the high-minded, simplistic idea that we just need to get back to “normal” and everything will be fine.

Everything won’t be fine, not without constant organizing, mobilization and activism by those of us who believe in more than just an increasingly corrupt status quo that makes millions more feel comfortable while leaving millions of children hungry every night as the earth continues to be destroyed and our citizenry immiserated for the profit of supremely deserving men like Charles Koch, Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos.

The election of Biden will not bring back any of the 300,000 dead (and rapidly counting — 3,607 means 2.5 dead of COVID EVERY MINUTE yesterday), many of whom, perhaps half or more, did not have to die horrible, solitary deaths, but for the depraved indifference of Mr. Trump and his idiot lackeys.

Let us also remember that this is an oligarchic administration that truly had no business being in office, and would not have in an actual democracy. Trumpism was narrowly elected in the Electoral College (78,000 votes in MI, WI and PA combined gave Trump the presidency), the Electoral College being the electoral savior of otherwise defeated minoritarian right-wing candidates. That archaic memento of the Peculiar Institution gave us two bloody, destructive imbecile presidents within sixteen recent years, both of whom lost the vote of citizens by considerable margins (the former by less than half a million, the latter by almost 3,000,000).

We are relieved, those of us who embrace the label anti-fascist, that our great nation did not descend into autocracy. The president is still trying to bring that about, but it’s not happening, not yet, not under this unfunny clown, anyway (Pompeo and Christie are the new hopes for a one-party Leader, I suppose — at least in their own grasping minds).

Trump abdicated and disclaims any and all responsibility for the mass death on his watch, especially now that he’s lost, as his party blocks monetary and food relief for millions of suffering Americans. Trump, Pompeo and company continue to actively spread the deadly infectious pandemic with holiday super-spreader parties. Republican leaders are also actively sabotaging Biden’s presidency as they hatch a comeback in a RED WAVE in 2022, based on Biden’s Socialistic failures and the many thousands more who will die of COVID, hunger and homelessness on his watch.

We must take solace in the consolation that our “institutions” have held.

It is some consolation (and nothing to sneeze at) that courts did not renounce the rule of law, as the Senate majority, the majority of Republicans in the House, the president and his remaining myrmidons all have. Fortunately, the election was not close enough for Amy Coney Barrett to be able to cast the deciding vote, or for other Trump appointees to the federal bench to do anything for their benefactor but follow the actual laws of our “nation of law”. Laws under which the lawless, even if supremely powerful, must sometimes lose.

It is some consolation that numerous Republican state officials across the country did what the majority of House Republicans did not — accept the election results after certifying (and in some cases recounting, more than once) the votes in what they confirmed was a fair election. They risked the rage of a vicious madman and should be acknowledged.

But is there any real consolation in people simply doing what they swore a public oath to do? Isn’t that the minimum we should demand of public servants? This is how far we have slipped as an experiment in democracy, we are much closer to an experiment in fascism.

A recent rampage by “Proud Boys” on the streets of our nation’s capitol, raising hell over a “stolen election” that every official everywhere has confirmed and certified, was a frustrated attempt at a pogrom. They’d probably have loved to do more killing, hoping to stir up a justifiably violent reaction by anti-racists that would have allowed their Leader to declare an insurrection, invoke the Insurrection Act, martial law and a Trump seizure of absolute power.

Even Trump’s hero, Mr. Hitler [2], could not have pulled that one off in the US in 2020. Hitler could not have come to power with only a small contingent of this kind of violent asshole willing to break heads for him. We just got lucky with that one.

Germany during Hitler’s rise had literal armies of angry veterans (freikorps), right-wing students and humiliated nationalistic sons of the unemployed, on the streets, everywhere, by the hundreds of thousands, ready to violently disrupt protests, bash people in the face, bloody their fists, stab, shoot, string up political enemies. As in similar situations here, the cops often stood by in sympathy, allowing them free rein to intimidate and beat up their hated pro-democracy enemies. In that climate of regular street battles, it was a matter, for the shrewd Mr. Hitler, of making sure his shock troops were more violent than anyone else and seizing leadership of this gigantic mass of enraged, violent Germans. Within a short time, they were all Nazis, marching under the swastika, winners. Seig Heil!

We don’t currently have that widespread, wildly popular ground game by disaffected, enraged men, feeling hopeless except when taking up arms and banding together to put some hurt on people they hate. If big changes are not made by this incoming administration, starting with prosecuting sedition and other high crimes by highly placed Trumpist democracy deniers, we can expect the forces of reaction to keep reacting, more and more violently.

We also need government programs, like the Works Progress Administration (WPA) that FDR put into place (by executive order), to give meaningful jobs, a decent future and a real connection to the larger community to millions of potential troops for the next would be American autocrat.

If we don’t learn to work together, and look out for each other and our common interests, the future is violent.

Clearly, crimes against democracy have to be vigorously prosecuted, and new laws put on the books to prevent the unaccountable corruption of a man like the “totally exonerated” Mr. Trump (so what if he abused power and acted in contempt of Congress? 51-49, suck it, cucks!), and other future fascistic shenanigans by narrowly elected officials and their unqualified interim appointees.

Biden won the Electoral College by a comfortable margin and the popular vote by 7,000,000 — margins not seen by any candidate defeating an incumbent since FDR ousted Herbert Hoover in 1932. A solid win, a mandate for democracy, you might say.

Half the country, and the vast majority of Republicans, believe that Biden is as illegitimate as the Kenyan secret-Muslim that he worked for, the corrupt and evil spying divider that Trump’s DOJ is still investigating with Bill Barr’s ongoing John Durham Investigation into “Russiagate”.

These loathsome creatures do not sleep. They plan, they create and fund ideological think tanks and employment societies, buy TV and radio stations, newspapers, airwaves, bandwidth, buy political candidates, “primary” moderates out of office, fund astroturf “mass movements” like the “grassroots” Tea Party that brought many maniacs into Congress (and more recently, Q-Anon adherents and a religious cult member Supreme Court justice).

The bulk of these folks are some of the stupidest and most selfish motherfuckers the world has ever known, but their sheer numbers, and determination, make them a force to reckon with. Ask any of the 3,607 Americans who died yesterday, at a rate of better than two a minute, on the Loser-in-Chief’s petulant lame duck watch.

[1]

[2]

The only book we are relatively sure our reading-challenged top student president ever read (or at least browsed) was the collection of Hitler’s speeches he kept by his bedside at his triplex penthouse apartment atop Trump Tower.

A dip in the reservoir of rage

Years ago a friend of mine from high school was arrested for swimming in the reservoir up in the Bronx. At the time it didn’t seem fair, to arrest somebody simply for dunking his dirty ass in everyone’s drinking water. After all, the reservoir is huge in comparison to one person’s sweat and funk — they drained it years later and the sanitation trucks parked on its vast, dry bottom looked like tiny matchbox toys. There was a principle involved, I realize now, when cops pulled my hippie friend from the drinking water of everyone he knew and charged him with a misdemeanor.

Arguments can always be made for every possible position, that’s the thing to keep in mind. When you take someone to court, it is not essential that you believe your argument is better than your adversary’s, that you will almost certainly win. All you need is what lawyers call a colorable claim — you know, theoretically it is possible, if the court can be persuaded, to interpret this particular law this particular way to prove — or, if not prove, at least credibly allege — that the person I’m dragging into court is a fucking asshole!

Growing up with an adversarial father, who framed our arguments around the dinner table as a war that my sister and I would inevitably lose (how right he was!) I came to recognize specific techniques he used over and over to browbeat his overmatched little adversaries. A big one was reframing. It is such an important technique, and so ubiquitous in daily life and in politics, that I feel obliged to lay it out clearly today, for whatever use seeing it in black and white may have for you.

Framing an issue the way you want gives you a distinct advantage in any argument since it lets you choose the precise battlefield you prefer to fight on. A good frame provides the instant moral and strategic high ground. It is easy to do. Just tell your adversary “while you may feel that we are arguing over (choose whatever is actually bothering the person) what we are really talking about is (substitute the larger, different, more important issue that you want to discuss).”

You feel hurt by what you claim I did to you? Well, you hurt me much more than I ever hurt you! Do you hear me whining about your incessant, blind, “innocent” cruelty? No, what we’re really talking about is your need to always play the victim, your prudish readiness to be morally nauseated, your petulant penchant for punkish whimpering. Your essential weakness.

You may not “win” the argument, assuming there are dispassionate observers to assign a final score based on the soundness of each side’s claims, as in a high school debate tournament, but, well, there are rarely, almost never, neutral parties who will decide who won or lost a given debate. Much will depend on how well you frame and reframe the discussion, how calmly you seem to argue versus how upset the other person seems. As a general rule, the person who winds up screaming in frustration is considered the loser.

Your adversary will not like having their concern reframed into what you prefer to talk about, not at all. Use this natural aversion to being misrepresented to your advantage. When you see them becoming upset by your framing and reframing you will know you’ve gained the upper hand. In politics this is often referred to as “triggering” — you frame something in a provocative way to get the indignant squeal that proves you’re right. Well, maybe “prove” is too strong a word, in this context, as is “right”, but, who cares? Fuck the enemy, right?

A good preemptive blanket framing technique is to characterize your opponent a certain way and stick to that characterization, no matter what is said. Have your talking point ready — my opponent is a (fill in any derogatory term you like) and frame everything in the context of what that kind of person will predictably say and do. The main thing is to keep hammering this one note hard and steady: what would you expect from a (blank)? If this is done correctly, everything they try to argue must be seen through the lens of a (blank) arguing (blank) because they are so completely, idiotically (blank).

The reservoir of human rage is impossibly immense. We cannot imagine the limits of it. The quiet waters we swim in can easily be sucked into this bottomless reservoir by enraged actors, always lurking nearby. Once you are swimming in rage, the limits of what you may have believed you are capable of will be expanded to things you may later shudder to revisit. Such is our life here, among our fellow “wise apes”. May your better and better ability to not get sucked into anger be a blessing to you, and to the people you care about.

Well-said, Heather

From Heather Cox Richardson’s most recent Letters from an American:

But, although 62% of American voters say the election is “over and settled” and it’s “time to move on,” Trump continues to insist that he won the election. In the face of the Electoral College confirmation of Biden’s win, this position increasingly seems a ploy to raise money. Even as the Electoral College was voting, the Trump campaign filed yet another lawsuit challenging the outcome of the election.

It has lost 59 of 60 court cases, and the Supreme Court last week refused to hear a case in which Trump planned to argue that mail-in voting in swing states that voted for Biden—but not the states that voted for him—injured Republican voters in Texas.