Don’t go for the head fakes! Keep your eye on the ball.

We have the report right here, summarized by the investigator, in clear, easy to read prose.   Read the summary of Volume II.   It is not long, and is very lightly redacted (harm to ongoing matters– things still under investigation by other authorities).   Then you will know exactly what Mueller found.   He gives example after example of acts by the president that meet all the legal requirements for obstruction of justice:  criminal intent, an obstructive act and a nexus to a proceeding.

You can read exactly what Mueller found, or go for the clumsy head fake of the pathetic, porcine puppet who lied and distorted the findings.  Barr told America (and the world) that Trump had fully cooperated with the investigation and gave unfettered access to all requested materials.   He said this even though Trump’s lawyers had him answer Mueller’s interrogatories with the standard “I don’t recall” 38 times  in his written answers, refused to answer follow-up written questions, refused to be interviewed by Mueller, as if Trump had not made several attempts to fire Mueller, had not constantly attacked Mueller and the investigation and mocked it as a partisan witch hunt, continually.   A small oversight by the pathetic porcine puppet, it appears, done, one supposes, to color the perception of the lazy American public, a public always willing to have confirmed for them what we already believe.   This Mueller witch hunt report is the work of traitorous Commies trying to bring down the greatest president in American history!

Take a look at the fixed, uneasy expression on Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s face, standing behind the pathetic porcine puppet as Trump’s loyal consigliere A.G. explains live on worldwide television why this damning report contains nothing to see here.

You can read the details, set out in black and white, and make your own decision about how damaging this is to Trump or wring your hands about the political optics of impeaching an openly corrupt president who projectile shits on every norm, and thrills a large number, a solid 39% of Americans, by doing so.   It could hurt Democrats in 2020!!  It could backfire, like the Clinton blow job impeachment did for Republicans in 1996!!!   This impeachment is about defending the rule of law as it applies to a Unitary Executive, even one as infallible as our current POTUS.

The only thing to fear is this president not being held accountable for countless cruel, stupid and corrupt acts done with the powers of the most powerful office in the world.  I am encouraged as momentum gathers among elected Democrats to hear what all the witnesses to the president’s attempts to obstruct justice have to say, to subpoena relevant documents, to press on with holding this never-accountable deadbeat winner accountable, finally.  Even Speaker Pelosi, (I call her Nancy), has started to come around, saying now that impeachment is “on the table” if the facts lead us there.

I love what Elizabeth Warren had to say about impeachment.  It is a matter of principle, beyond political calculation, if we are to defend our democratic tradition. Let the American people hear all the facts (like who is involved in the 12 criminal investigations Mueller handed off– every one of which has been redacted by the pathetic porcine puppet).   Hold hearings, on television.   Then let the Republicans, one after another, have to decide which way to vote, after hearing the overwhelming evidence of the president’s guilt.  

In the face of mounting public sentiment that the case against the man has been shown conclusively, let them pretend he is still innocent.   If they stand up and vote to acquit Trump, after making a political calculus, it will be a vote they will carry, like a scarlet letter, for the rest of their lives.   Good for them!

fueled by partisan outrage

It’s worth taking a closer look at what the pathetic porcine puppet said during his forty minute spin session on national TV before he released the redacted Mueller report on the investigation into Trump’s alleged misconduct.  Let’s take this part of his long statement apart, it’s rich in inventive detail.

ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR: In assessing the president’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office and sought to perform his responsibilities as president, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the president’s personal culpability.

Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the special counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the president was frustrated and angered by his sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents and fueled by illegal leaks.   Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the special counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims.

President Trump faced an unprecedented situation, Mr. Barr points out sympathetically.  Just because Mr. Trump was constantly sending out angry tweets that made him look guilty, changing his story constantly, repeatedly lying, raging, acting like a guilty man, he was unfairly attacked by his enemies.

Fair enough.

Also, there was this vicious inquiry into his associates, very few of whom were actually indicted and convicted of serious crimes.  These crimes, outside of the financial ones, were crimes of loyalty to the president, in the cases where only a small handful of his closest former associates lied to Congress and the FBI.   Can you really even call lying out of loyalty a  crime?   Just because some of his closest advisors are heading to prison, and others cooperated with the investigation in exchange for staying out of prison, is no reason to believe there is anything dirty or unethical about the president himself.

There was no collusion.  Fair enough.  Mr. Trump’s personal style is chaos, he is not a collaborative leader, he does not listen to advisors or work well with others.  His mother once noted with a chuckle that little Donald never played well with other kids, he always played to win, even in the playroom, even against his baby brother.

Here is my favorite part, a completely meaningless piece of lawyerly bullshit:

And as the special counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the president was frustrated and angered by his sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents and fueled by illegal leaks.

OK, Mueller provided ample evidence (much of it seen in real time by every American not turning away in horror from all media coverage of this unique president) that Mr. Trump was sincerely frustrated and angry.   Now we know, informed by Mr. Barr, that Trump’s belief was sincere that they couldn’t lay a finger on him because he was innocent, innocent, innocent!  

So his anger was righteous anger, according to Barr, similar to Boof Kavanaugh’s righteous, perfectly understandable rip-snorting, tearful temper tantrum when confronted with  credible testimony describing how he, while a blackout drunk in an elite Catholic prep school, had traumatized at least one teenaged girl while he was in a drunken state.    That allegation was thoroughly investigated in five days by the FBI and, naturally, no corroboration of the woman’s story was found among the small handful of people interviewed by the FBI.   Nothing to see there, unless you are fueled by pent-up rage over being a loser!

Since the president sincerely knew the  Mueller investigation was totally unfair, a witch hunt, knew that he was totally blameless, perhaps the most blameless president in history, he was absolutely right and morally entitled to be frustrated and angry, according to Barr who says that Mueller “acknowledged” all this.  

What?   Get the fuck out of here.

Mueller was, according to Barr, working for the president’s political opponents, even though Mueller belongs to the same political party as the president and the president’s party was in power when Mueller was appointed– and they oversaw his investigation.

I guess Barr’s point was that since Trump sincerely believed he was completely innocent he would have had to have been Jesus Christ himself not to react in frustration and rage, on a several times a day basis, at all the speculation in the press about how guiltily he was acting.   How would YOU feel if YOU were totally innocent and subjected to that kind of vicious, partisan witch hunt?  And the media would not shut up about it!!!  Wouldn’t you instruct your people to shut that shit down, if you had the power to ?!!! Sure you would.

Last bit of great shit from the pathetic, porcine puppet:

Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the special counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims.

This statement is what used to be called a lie, since it asserts things that are not, strictly speaking, true.  The White House merely refused to answer follow-up written questions from the Mueller team, after the president’s lawyers submitted incomplete written answers (that Trump claimed, ludicrously, to have “written” himself)  the first time.   The White House legal team (of which Barr is now, unaccountably, a member) made it clear that they would not let Trump, a habitual, reflexive,well-documented liar, walk into a “perjury trap” by talking to Mueller (taking the lesson of what happened to perjurer slick Willie Clinton, a much more sophisticated, articulate man– and a trained lawyer–  than the smartest president in human history, the man we have now).  The access was fettered, to say the least.

Meanwhile, the president was continually ordering subordinates to bend or break the law, to stifle the investigation and create the public perception that Mueller had absolutely no grounds to pursue his partisan inquiry into a president who, among other suspicious official acts, innocently met with Vladimir Putin twice, alone, with only a translator, and ordered the American translator to destroy his notes of the meeting he translated.  Nothing to fucking see here!

That’s what the pathetic porcine puppet would call full transparency.  The president was sincere in his belief that he could get away with it.   And he did!   Proving, as always, that Mr. Trump’s sincere belief is the best measure of everything in his world, a world the rest of us just live in.

Pathetic porcine puppet

 

The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.

Robert Mueller III, end of his executive summary of Obstruction of Justice findings   (read entire unredacted summary here)

William Barr (the titular “pathetic porcine puppet”, in the accurate, alliterative phrase tweeted by constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe), current U.S. Attorney General, our nation’s recently appointed top law enforcement official, pretends that Mueller concluded no such thing.  His spin is an evidence-avoiding counter-conclusion that pleases the boss, at whose pleasure Barr serves, the only thing a loyal consigliere must consider, how to protect the boss no matter what.               

All Barr had for the American public was “nothing to see here” and the indignant opinion that the president was absolutely right to feel “frustrated, angry” and under attack by a politically motivated investigation that found “nothing to see here.”  In addition, the president was betrayed by a long succession of disloyal rats, their leaks fueling the baseless investigation.    Here is what he said in his long, public address to all Americans prior to releasing the report, this was apparently the money shot:

ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR: In assessing the president’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office and sought to perform his responsibilities as president, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the president’s personal culpability.

Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the special counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the president was frustrated and angered by his sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents and fueled by illegal leaks. [1]  Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the special counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims.

Mueller, you will see, found many troubling things about our angry, frustrated, traitor-betrayed president’s actions over the last two years.  You can read the highlights for yourself in the virtually un-redacted summary here.

There have always been Americans, often the greatest beneficiaries of the unfair status quo, who believe the president should be an all-powerful ruler.   The theory of the Unitary Executive has been put forward, by people like the aptly named Dick Cheney, as an argument that a democracy needs a strong chief executive whose powers cannot be unduly restrained by elected officials in Congress or political appointees in the judiciary branch.  

In practice this “theory” comes from the reasonable fear that the will of a unilaterally ideological president could be counteracted, even hamstrung, by other elected representatives, by judges, absent the special privileges of the Unitary Executive.   It would be disastrous for the interests of the ultra-privileged if poor, despised Americans could vote in huge numbers, in fair elections, to elect people to represent their interests, instead of the interests of the organized super-wealthy who currently fund the election of our presidents.   History shows it’s easier to elect one cynical bought and paid for corrupt fucker than the many needed to control Congress (though, clearly, most of them are for sale too).

The Unitary Executive is good for things like unilaterally dismantling social programs that don’t benefit the rich, removing protections to small investors, consumers, vulnerable earthlings trying to breathe and eat food that is not poisoned.   The Unitary Executive is the counter-theory to “checks and balances”.   The president, under this view, is closer to a king, dictator, strongman or a CEO who also owns the company and has his children/heirs as the board of directors, than to the presidency envisioned by our founding fathers and embodied in the presidency of George Washington, setting the tone for a president bound by law and norms, a cooperative executive carrying out the democratically expressed will of the people, decorously.

This toxic orange turd who presently occupies the Oval Office is a big believer in the theory that he should have the final word on everything that happens in the nation that swept him into power with a historic mandate of around 80,000 electoral college votes.   Otherwise, it’s unfair to him and bad for democracy!    He gets frustrated and angry, as his current attorney general said defending his master’s indefensible attempts to end a lawful inquiry into his overtly suspicious and corrupt-appearing dealings, when people he attacks attack him back.  How dare they?!!!  He is the president, not them!!!

Like one of history’s most famous insane dictators, a man who would have celebrated his 120th birthday yesterday, had he not brought ruin and shame to his nation and almost destroyed it before poisoning his wife and dog and blowing his own brains out, Mr. Trump demands absolute personal loyalty from the people he hires.   Mr. Hitler required an oath of personal loyalty to himself, not to Germany, not to the German constitution.  Many were glad and proud to give that loyalty oath, many others were killed for not giving that oath, for not honoring it no matter what.   Tyrants and mobsters have no patience for “rats”.  A rat is a rat is a rat.

The Unitary Executive can order subordinates to violate the law with no fear of consequences (while in office, anyway).  The Department of Justice has issued two opinions, one in 1973 the other in 2000, that the sitting president cannot be the subject of a criminal prosecution.   The second of these DOJ opinions was written after Bill Clinton was tried, during his presidency, for violating a federal statute about workplace harassment when, as governor of Arkansas, he allegedly tried to get an employee to have sex with him.  

The devilish detail there was that it was not a strictly criminal or civil trial but an alleged violation of a federal law, which is why the Supreme Court denied Clinton’s attempt to not stand trial while president.  

Clinton quietly paid the plaintiff a ton of money to end the case against him.   Painted as a slippery, lying bastard during that prosecution, he was then forced into a corner, under oath, by a partisan Independent Counsel, about blow jobs he received in the Oval Office and impeached for perjury when he tried to weasel out of publicly admitting a young intern had fellated him.   For the good of the country, and the protection of future presidents, the DOJ decided again, as they had in 1973, that sitting presidents should not be put on trial, except by the Senate following articles of impeachment from the House.

The founding fathers, who extreme conservatives are fond of citing as secular prophets similar in stature to the divinely inspired men who wrote the Bible, wisely designed a government of three co-equal branches, to prevent any one branch from imposing tyranny on the country.  A system of checks and balances, it is often called.  

The president is the executive who carries out legislation reflecting the will of the People, expressed through their elected representatives, with the safeguard (created by Justice John Marshall in an early Supreme Court decision) of a Supreme Court to decide, unappealably, whether the challenged law complies with our Constitution.

Now we come to William Barr, our current Attorney General, Laurence Tribe’s “pathetic porcine puppet.”   Tribe added that Barr’s partisan behavior as Attorney General has been shameful.   His lying, wildly spinning introduction of the redacted Mueller report was disgraceful.

Barr openly auditioned  (skip to section below the illustration in the link for details) for the job by publicly offering to do the equivalent for Mr. Trump of what Monica Lewinsky had done for Mr. Clinton.   He wrote a nineteen page legal memo and sent it to Trump.  The memo stated (falsely) that as a matter of law a president cannot obstruct justice.  The memo described exactly how Barr would defend the president, come what may.   He also wrote several op-eds supporting some of the president’s more grotesque, and legally dubious, policies.

The point is, even if William Barr were not a corpulent corporatist (and I’m not one to call a fat bastard fat) even if he was a thin, dapper, handsome man, he would still be a pathetic porcine puppet.   He made it clear to our simple-minded, if cunning, president, that he’d be happy to have POTUS’s hand up his ass and let the president do whatever the president needed done to carry out his historically important work.   Personal loyalty, uber alles.

Barr could have released Mueller’s entire executive summary the same day he put out his summary letter (that he later denied had been a summary) stating that Mueller had cleared the president of all wrong-doing.   Mueller’s executive summary of his investigation ends with these lines (and again, barely a phrase of Mueller’s summary needed to be redacted by the pathetic porcine puppet):

The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.

CONCLUSION

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.

Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

(emphasis mine.   From Mueller’s excellent, clear, short summary of Volume II on obstruction which I urge you to read in its entirety here)

 

Barr could have released Mueller’s entire executive summary the same day he put out his misleading, distracting, falsely exonerating, non-summary summary– again, virtually NOTHING in the summary was redacted by the loyal, pathetic, porcine puppet (I counted 4 redactions, “harm to ongoing matters” in Part I and 3 such redactions in Part II).  Bill Barr, and I say this with all due respect, is a fucking disgrace to the law and to our tradition of democracy.   Makes Jeff Sessions (a weasel too racist to be appointed to the federal bench, imagine how racist that is!) look like a man of integrity, a man with at least nominal respect for the norms of American democracy.

Read the executive summary of the obstruction case against Mr. Trump.  It is not long and is an easy read, the facts clearly laid out.   As soon as Mr. Trump felt under threat by the Mueller investigation, the facts show, he went into overdrive, ordering subordinates to violate the spirit (and sometimes letter) of the law to protect him from the groundless witch hunt that made him so angry and so frustrated for so long– as it would have anyone, according to the pathetic porcine puppet apologist.

In the end, not without some irony, president Fuckface’s presidency may have been saved by subordinates who refused to carry out his orders to commit illegal acts.   By not carrying out those orders, detailed in Mueller’s summary, they may have prevented the actual crime of Obstruction of Justice.

That said, there are many, many reasons to impeach the self-serving, corrupt, self-dealing imbecile president.   They are outlined beautifully here.

As the author of that article stresses, having the votes for impeachment and removal from office is not the only consideration.   Impeachment is the only legal way Americans have to hold a corrupt demagogue in high office to account for the harm he is doing to democracy, our standing in the world, and the world itself.  

At the very least, impeachment would show that America will not tolerate this kind of abusive public behavior in our president.   It will place the case before the American people, keep the indefensible fuck on the defensive, angry and frustrated  (and rightfully so, and good for the loser)  and hunkering down against an army of disloyal, leaking, ass-covering rat traitors.   And, fuck him. And the pathetic porcine puppet he is trying to ride off on.

 

[1]  I wonder if Boof Kavanaugh helped Mr. Barr with his remark, the rhetorical style and rhythm of this:

“And as the special counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the president was frustrated and angered by his sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents and fueled by illegal leaks.”

is reminiscent of these immortal lines, the winning argument of Boof Kavanaugh, when he cried and blustered his way on to the Supreme Court:

20190422_025145.jpg

A few words about liberation

I will practice saying this in an anodyne way, in a manner designed to avoid controversy, to provoke no political knee jerks or piss anybody off.  [1]

Tonight we Jews celebrate our people’s emergence from slavery to freedom, from bondage to liberty.  It is literally a celebration of liberation that requires each of us to imagine herself as a slave and to consider and commit ourselves to the duties of free people towards those who are oppressed.   We are commanded to identify with the slave, the oppressed, the victimized.  It is very, very hard to imagine the pain of slavery if you have never experienced it.

Frederick Douglass wrote about how agonizing it was to take leave of his loved ones forever when he escaped from a slave state to a free state and became, for the first time, a free human being like any other.   He commented that had it not been for these bonds of love, and the heart-crushing thought of never seeing, or even hearing from, any of your loved ones again in this world, thousands more slaves would have escaped.

We cannot dream of what we cannot imagine. The idea of something better comes first.  The vision, born in discontent, is what spurs us to action when we seek to change our condition, change the world.  At one time many ideas we all accept today were unthinkable: abolition of American slavery, the end of unlimited child labor, gay marriage, to name just three that spring to mind.  

Each of these common injustices were accepted by most people for centuries as just part of the legal and moral landscape, however unfair some may have privately agreed these things were.  The Constitution protected slavery, after all, there was no law that said children couldn’t be worked as virtual slaves without no limitation on hours or working conditions, homosexuals were long considered deviants to be punished for their sexual preference.  Today we see these things much differently, and laws were made to ensure these changes were enforced, only because, after a long, determined, principled struggle in each case, a more just idea took root in our society.

A vision of a better way always comes first.  What we can’t imagine, or name, is impossible to work towards.  The firm idea of how intolerable an injustice is must take root before any change can begin.  Before we can take steps to end oppression we need to name it, analyze it, understand it, form effective strategies to defeat it.  We also need to imagine and describe the end goal we have in mind.  

The slave dreaming of escaping, getting rich and buying slaves of his own is no dream at all, it is just more of the same.    

I’m not the only person thinking this way, that we need to dream actively of what we want to become.   Check out this beautiful vision of a better world, by several women I already admired greatly (and a couple of guys too, apparently).

 

[1] Tomorrow I’ll go back to business as usual, fuck this anodyne shit.  I  will thoroughly dissect pathetic porcine puppet Bill Barr’s sickeningly misleading, ass-kissing, partisan spin on Mueller’s report, the executive summary of which ends:

The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.

CONCLUSION

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

 

(from Mueller’s excellent, clear, short summary of Volume II on obstruction which I urge you to read in its entirety here)

Hey, Avooma Veeny!

(large print edition)

When my sister was thirteen or fourteen she walked through the room and Pop, mischief twinkling in his blue eyes, said “Hey, Abby, I like your bayzem.”  I thought it was one of the funniest things I ever heard and seeing me laughing, he began howling too.  You should have seen my sister’s face.  

He later defended his innocent remark by saying that bayzem means “broom” in Yiddish.  He shrugged. My grandmother confirmed that a bayzem was indeed a broom.  It was nothing and nothing came of it.  But it created a stir when he said it, for sure.

He liked this, he had a mischievous side that he had to keep under wraps most of the time.   It was cool to play this way with the grandchildren sometimes.   Sure his wife and daughter would give him some shit about it, but it was worth it.   He also loved speaking bilingual non sequitars, repurposing a word or phrase in one language to make no sense or relate to anything, except for the sound, in another.    

He was there when we brought Winnie home from the Brumby’s.   The Brumbys were a Scottish couple who bred West Highland Terriers (picture Toto from the Wizard of Oz in white).   The papers they prepared for Winnie referred to her as a West Highland Puppy Bitch.  My sister and I had a lot of laughs reading that off of her papers.   She was a wonderful dog, my father’s favorite, I have to think.    I have a great photo of her lying on my father’s chest, his arm over her, as he naps on the couch, glasses up on his forehead. 

Pop looked over to us playing with Winnie and said “Avooma Veeny!”   He said this playfully, in his deep, rumbling voice, said it more than once that day.   It was clearly a play on Winnie’s name and my sister and I immediately embraced it as one of several pet names for our adorable new puppy bitch.

Years later I would learn that Avooma Veeny was the Russian-Jewish pronunciation of Avraham Aveenu, our father Abraham, the first Jewish monotheist, the guy who was ready to cut his beloved son’s throat because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded him to. Avraham Aveenu, Avooma Veeny, Winnie.  

“Hey, Avooma Veeny!” my grandfather would call from the kitchen table, holding out a small scrap of chicken skin on his wide fingers.   Avooma Veeny would waste no time getting the treat from Pop.

Understanding Anti-Semitism and other irrational hatreds

If you start with a slight prejudice, and have it confirmed a few times by your own experience, you will often come away with the firm belief that you were right to dislike the suspect fucks all along.

I am Jewish, from a once-large family ruthlessly pruned by European anta-semits almost eighty years ago.  As one of the few left from a family wiped from the world, strictly on the basis of our religion and social status, I am aware of the murderous power of rage channeled into an ignorantly opinionated and violent belief system. It is the same anywhere, where one group kills another simply because they hate and feel righteous doing so.

Jews were hand in hand with blacks catching hell down south during the Civil Rights movement.   Both of my parents were reviled as “Nigger Lovers”, which was the common phrase for their type back then.  Now, more often than not, Jews and blacks find ourselves on opposite sides of a divide that benefits only powerful haters.   The way of this imperfect world, I suppose, to randomly divide and control groups of people, and a subject for another time. [1]

Yesterday I had a graphic illustration of how this hatred of groups works.   I waited on a long line in a health food store in Queens to buy some vegetarian burgers we like.   At the cash register I was surprised when the bill was $1.20 more than I expected to pay for the two items.  

 Before you say I’m conforming to the stereotype of the cheap, penny-pinching Jew who only thinks about the price of everything and is always looking for the best deal, consider me as an aware consumer who knows how much the thing he buys regularly is supposed to cost.    The price ranges from $4.99 to $5.49, everywhere.   This store charged $6.09.

The line had been long, it was raining out, a 60 cent surcharge for each item was not hard to pay. Nonetheless, I was a little disgusted at the greed of the store owner, a store doing a brisk and lucrative business, as I went back out into the rain.

On the way home I stopped in another store to pick up something else.  The price was a little higher for this item than at other places, but I was happy to find it so I bought it.

  The cashier rang it up and charged me almost a dollar more than the price on the item.  I paid and left, then looked at the price again and thought “what the fuck?”

I went back in, the manager was called over and I was subjected to a convoluted rationale for why the store was legally required, contrary to the actual law, to charge tax for this tax-free item.  I have never paid tax for this item in any of the dozen stores I bought it in.  That’s because it is illegal in New York City to charge tax for this kind of ready-to-eat item.  I looked at the young Korean manager, who stood firm on store policy, said nothing, left the store, later ate the food.   Now, for the insight.  

Both stores were run by Koreans, no doubt future crazy rich Asians.   I called an old friend and told her I’d had a graphic insight into the workings of antisemitism.   I was disgusted by the practices of both greedy store owners, both of whom happened to belong to a certain ethnic group, and that, therefore, it felt quite natural to draw a conclusion about the group personality of these “Jews of east Asia”.  

Much to my surprise, my friend immediately jumped, with surprising vehemence, into an animated and detailed discourse on the sometimes shady practices of Korean store owners.

“Koreans are famously greedy bastards,” she said, adding a few of her direct experiences with greedy Korean store owners, reminding me how brazen they’d been at the laundry after losing articles of our clothes more than once. This happened because they combined the washes of customers, to be a little more efficiently profitable.

She gave them some credit for having invented the salad bar, though, of course, it was also a way to charge inflated prices for rotting food that they cut the bad parts off of.    

“Some of them are greedy bastards, no doubt, but we can agree that not all Koreans are like that,”  I said, but the point was made.   She was really disgusted by greedy fucking Korean store owners in New York City.   It was a pet peeve of her’s, being ripped off by the snippy, greedy, entitled fucks.

We all swim in a sea of outrage.  Our fellow swimmers are constantly kicking and clawing us.  It is good to remember, somehow, that succumbing to hatred of everyone else, while easy to do, is important to resist.   Every one of us is an individual with a soul of infinite worth.  Even greedy fucking bastards.

Oh, yeah, here’s yet another example of Korean entrepreneurship in a disappointing context.  This occurred between my trips to the two Korean-owned grocery stores and, even though completely innocent  on the part of the school operators, would have sealed the deal, if I was the sort to make that kind of deal.  

I went to pick up a couple of whole wheat everything bagels at the bagel place on Horace Harding yesterday.   The place has been there since I was a kid, open 24 hours a day, selling hot bagels (boiled and baked in the back) for easily fifty years.    I was in there about a month ago, the place smelled great, the bagels were delicious.    

Yesterday the bagel place was a storefront school where local immigrant parents send their children so they will all get into medical and law school.  

How many more examples do you need?

20190414_173627.jpg

 

 

[1]   Though it was hard to ignore the spectacle of Jews of various political orientations coming together to denounce an elected official, a black woman, a Muslim, who’d bluntly stated that Israel is immune from criticism in America, no matter how extremely it behaves, because it has a powerful, well-funded political action network here in our pay-to-play democracy.   Imagine that, a fucking Muslim woman complaining about a group of Jews using their wealth to influence American foreign policy!   How dare she?!!!  (Even if it is true).   Fucking anti-Semite!  

The case for her anti-Semitism strikes me as thin, particularly in light of what she said afterwards, the content of her apology for insensitivity, what she said in the actual remarks from which the indictment of her was drawn.   She made the point that you cannot criticize Israel’s actions without being called an anti-Semite.  The almost universal reaction to her selected remarks showed that this point was true.   She also said that we dehumanize humans who are being brutalized, in order to remove their brutalization from the discussion of right and wrong.   I agree.  

Did any Iraqi civilian child have anything to do with the tyrannical reign of Saddam Hussein?  No, but many were killed, a fact made much easier to bear if they can be made “other”…   This is an ancient technique.  You are justified in killing a terrorist, always.  If you kill freedom fighters, on the other hand, you are evil.   Now just tell me which one is which.

The clip of her uttering the offensive phrase “dual loyalty” (of American Jews to Israel) was played over and over, and referring to hundred dollar bills, called “Benjamins” by rappers, (after notorious Jew Benjamin Franklin)  to make the irrefutable case that this African Muslim bitch is out of line.  

Personally, I believe what she’s said, both in the remarks she was condemned for and her interviews and statements since the “sensational” story, which blew up big time because attacking the power of AIPAC is as politically stupid as denouncing the NRA or Big Pharma, or the Oil Industry.    

A black woman, a Muslim, criticizing the decisive role of  money coming through the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) in determining American foreign policy– well, the only explanation is that she’s an anti-Semite, and possibly, also, a supporter of terrorism.  That or a freedom fighter, but fighting for the wrong freedom…

 

Imagining Liberation

I had an email from the thoughtful son of old friends, a young man who was already becoming a mensch when he was a boy.    He asks for contemporary liberation stories for the upcoming seder.   The seder is the Passover meal where we discuss (at the best of the seders) the concept of liberation from all forms of slavery. I’ve been thinking about contemporary liberation stories since I read his note earlier today.

My first thought was the inspiring message delivered by historian Howard Zinn toward the end of his life  when he was honored in France for his great A People’s History of the United States. [1]    Zinn viewed his project as writing a creative history to anticipate a possible future, a fairer, more desirable world, and to disclose those fleeting, often “hidden episodes of the past” when the good in us, our compassion, rose up in a wave to triumph over every one of humanity’s worst impulses.

My second thought was that what we cannot imagine we can never help bring into existence.   This works as well for great, life-saving ideas as well for awful world destroying ones.  Hateful ideas, sadly, seem to have a consistent power all their own to rouse people.   I am imagining a future better, more just, more peaceful than our present.   We have many examples of the world being one way for centuries until a big idea took shape, was afoot in the land, began to influence the beliefs of millions of people.

It was unimaginable to most Americans, in 1795, in 1820, 1850, that slavery, “the Peculiar Institution,” a powerful engine of the American economy that created vast wealth, would ever be outlawed.   Slavery was explicitly protected in the U.S. Constitution, after all.   Abolitionism took many years to rise into a commonly understood cause and later an unstoppable movement.  The pressure to crack the country in two was the result of the clash of the idea that slavery is legal, and good, and that slavery is an intolerable evil in the land of the free and the home of the brave.  An ocean of American blood was spilled to settle the question, and today even the crudest demagogue would hold himself back from publicly advocating slavery.

In 1890 it was unthinkable to Americans that 48 years later child labor would be subject to the limitations of federal law.  Prior to the 1938 law, children could be employed seven days a week, for limitless hours a day, starting as early as dawn, working well into the night, in a mill, a factory, mucking out chimney lines, bringing supplies down into mines, working on assembly lines.   The New Deal legislation that put reasonable restrictions to protect children from childhoods as slave laborers was many decades in the making, after centuries of ordinary, common brutality everybody just thought was the way the world is.  You’re born, they work you all day, every day, you die.  Before that law was written and passed the idea that children needed protection from ruthless employers had to take root, after decades of massive child suffering and millions of hobbled lives.

In 2004, after a disastrous first term, Bush and Cheney were reelected for a second term, carried to victory by millions of “values voters”– people who hated homosexuality more than they loved their own gay kids and were fired up to go to the polls and defeat those godless liberals who advocated some kind of equality for sodomites.   Only 15 years later that wave of aging bigots has no choice but to grimly accept the unthinkable, that gay marriage, and full civil rights for homosexuals, is the law of the land.

My point is that the first step to liberation is a vision of freedom, a picture of the better alternative to the status quo we all accept, an imagining of a better society.   If we don’t have words and images for it, it may be hard to imagine, but imagine it we must, even if the words for it must be diligently sought or even coined. [2]   The driver of this imagining is discontent, it is the precondition for thinking our way out of what is unbearable to us.  What oppresses us the most is also the key to our dream of liberation.   

Not to recognize this leaves us to hide our heads from the most vexing and grotesque aspects of “business as usual.”  I have many friends who no longer watch the news, for fear that Trump’s latest projectile turd will hit them in the face and finally drive them over the deep end.    POTUS is a charlatan, a blowhard, a greedily materialistic compulsive liar whose only “belief” is in “winning” (which does not appear to make the humorless liar happy, in any case).   He is obnoxious, angry, mocking, a hypocrite, a petulant, foolish, combative child with the power to  literally destroy the world. 

I understand why my friends avoid the news.  I try not to judge them for their ostrich poses, though I don’t always succeed.   I keep thinking of that old saw “all evil needs to triumph is for good people to do nothing.”    The first condition for imagining a better world, it seems to me, is looking at this world squarely and carefully.   It is imperative to hear the rhymes of history, to know as exactly as possible what we are up against, in all its devilish detail.   The unforeseen is not unforeseeable.   Outcomes can be predicted, we can watch sad fate of our mistreated earth in the regular climate catastrophe that has now become merely part of the news cycle.  The idea that this is bullshit, that one should be a “climate change skeptic” was created in a public relations lab, funded by the fossil fuel industry, the main beneficiaries of this particular extractive mode of making billions.

We need to be vigilant, to watch, to discuss, to find the right actions to take.  It is not hard to dream of a system better than this, where we are subjected to ever more crude cartoon characters making our laws.  We are strong enough to do it, and we have to be, to dream of a better world than this one, run by the worst of us.   And to make that idea a rallying cry.

 

 

[1]    Howard Zinn (hear him deliver his short speech, cued up here):

“I wanted, in writing this book, to awaken a consciousness in my readers, of class conflict, of racial injustice, of sexual inequality and of national arrogance, and I also wanted to bring into light the hidden resistance of the People against the power of the establishment.   

I thought that to omit these acts of resistance, to omit these victories, however limited, by the people of the United States, was to create the idea that power rests only with those who have the guns, who possess the wealth.  I wanted to point out that people who seem to have no power — working people, people of color, women– once they organize and protest and create national movements, they have a power that no government can suppress.

“I don’t want to invent victories for people’s movements, but to think that history writing must simply recapitulate the failures that dominate the past is to make historians collaborators in an endless cycle of defeat.  And if history is to be creative, if it’s to anticipate a possible future without denying the past, it should, I think, emphasize new possibilities by disclosing those hidden episodes of the past when, even if in brief flashes, people showed their ability to resist, to join together, occasionally to win.

“I am supposing, or perhaps only hoping, that our future may be found in the past’s fugitive moments of compassion rather than in the solid centuries of warfare.”

more about context to gained from reading good history

 

[2]  The terms extractive vs. regenerative, for example, can be applied to economic systems, with illuminating results.  An extractive model requires great pollution and eventually exhausts the resource being extracted (think extracting petrol from tar sand).  A regenerative model is based on sustainability and not harming the earth (renewable power and so on).  Which model would you prefer, if you were the Decider?

Pop loved “shooting pictures”

My grandfather was a mild-mannered man.  He had big, powerful hands he used for years professionally in the delicate art of egg candling. He held an egg in front of a bright light, (a candle at one point, one supposes) and inspected it to see if the yolk had the shadow of a spot in it.  If so, this spot of blood indicated it had been fertilized and wasn’t fit to eat.  I don’t know if this was under Jewish law or American health law, but he sat with cases of eggs, in the basement of his friend Al’s  (who my grandmother once said smelled like a camel), grocery store, or Julie’s appetizing shop, picking them up in his large hands one by one, gently turning them in front of the light and looking through their shells to see if they could be sold.

The year I was born, Pop, at one time a prodigious cigarette smoker (Camels, if memory serves), underwent late stage lung cancer surgery.   They removed one of his lungs.  I was a few months old at the time and remember only what I was later told about it.   We have the snake plant that was delivered to Pop in the hospital as he recuperated from the surgery.  The plant is almost 63 years old and doing well.   Pop had an excellent recovery from the surgery and lived twenty-two years with only one lung in his powerful body.  

One of his doctors recommended that he add bacon to his diet, for health reasons.  There was some kind of bullshit rationale involved, which my grandfather explained to me at one point.   So in addition to his usual kasha, boiled flanken, boiled chicken, soup and several slices of whole wheat, pumpernickel or rye bread Pop ate a few strips of bacon from time to time, at his doctor’s recommendation.

Pop was a well-built, trim man who weighed 168 pounds for his entire adult life.  One year at his physical he weighed in at 169 or 170.   He and the doctor were both surprised.   The doctor asked pop how many slices of bread he ate a day.   My grandfather counted and told the doctor seven.   The doctor said, “eat six”.   Pop did.  At his next physical he was 168 pounds.  

The lived philosophy of that, food merely fuel for the optimum running of your body, still fills me with wonder and admiration.  Pop would eat a Danish from a bakery from time to time with his coffee, but couldn’t care less if he did or he didn’t.  He always handed my sister and me each a candy bar (it was Chunkies for a long time, a chocolate chunk filled with peanuts and raisins, then mainly Nestle’s Crunch Bars with the occasional Mr. Goodbar thrown in) as soon as he saw us.  For himself, he never ate anything just for the taste of it.

Pop was retired for most of the time I knew him. His favorite pastime in those years was watching a good shooting picture on TV.   He’d scan the TV Guide, a small booklet that came out every week and told you what was coming up on each of the seven or eight stations available in the media mega-market of New York City and later Miami Beach. When he spotted a good shooting picture, also known as a Western, he’d tune in and watch the good guys triumph over the bad guys.

“Sit down,” he’d say, if I asked him who was who on the screen, “watch and you’ll know.”  In most of the shooting pictures Pop watched, Hollywood movies of the 1940s, 50s and early 60s, it didn’t take long to figure out who was wearing the white hat and who was the evil, sadistic, murdering bastard who needed killing, the one glaring provocatively from under the black hat.   Simpler times.

Pop loved Bonanza, and Gun smoke, two shows he caught every week, my parents and I loved those shows too, my sister would also watch them.  Outside of those, he’d catch every western on Million Dollar Movie, a show where they played the same black and white movie several times in a given week.  Pop would watch pretty much any movie where good guys and bad guys dressed like cowboys, (or Indians, for that matter), chased each other around in the dust of their horses and shot it out at the end.

Pop’s hammer

This is the “European hammer” that belonged to my grandfather.   I will have more to say about the old fellow and his life in the coming days, but, for the moment, here is the hammer itself:

20180830_185256.jpg

You can see how ready it is to get to work, banging in a thin nail or doing some serious peening (whatever the hell that is).   Here is another view of the business end of my grandfather’s ball-peen hammer:

20180830_185645.jpg

I never saw my grandfather use this hammer, that I can recall.   The hammer, I must say, reflects his style.  My grandfather had a certain graceful delicacy about him.  He was surprisingly light on his feet.   My sister once witnessed him, at close to eighty, doing a mocking dance move behind his overbearing wife’s back.   It was during a dispute over the fate of some cash my grandfather was planning to deposit in the bank.

“Don’t put that money in the bank! I’m taking Abby out for lunch and then we’re going shopping, I need the money,” my grandmother said, in the tone of one used to being the boss.  

My sister then had the miraculous luck to witness a little dance that my grandfather must have done countless times over his long life with Yetta.   As his wife went into the other room, he did a kind of shrug and with fluid grace lifted one leg, bent the other knee and threw his arms to the side in a comically ironic manner.  

“She don’t want to put the money in the bank,” he said quietly, moving his head from side to side as he danced his mocking dance.   “She don’t want to put the money in the bank!”

Decades later I found a great clip somebody put together of Paolo Conte’s [1] wonderful “It’s Wonderful” with Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers dancing.   A beautiful job.  Take a moment to enjoy it, and enjoy it you certainly will.   I sent it to my sister with the caption “Pop” and she instantly agreed.

 

[1]  dig  what Conte plays behind the sax solo, (I’ve cued it up for you), great stuff!