tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-206683592024-02-20T14:40:30.291-08:00Once Upon a Time...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1214125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-39091276359520919872019-07-01T12:21:00.000-07:002019-07-01T12:21:34.912-07:00Moving Interruptus, and Why Hospitals SuckIn the event, June turned out to be the horrible month I had expected -- but June also proved unexpectedly resourceful. It was horrible for reasons I hadn't anticipated. Or, rather, I had known those reasons would surface again at some point, but not, I futilely hoped, right smack in the middle of my moving.<br /><br />
At the end of May, I signed a lease on a new apartment, and put down all the money required for the first month's rent and a security deposit. Huge and eternal thanks to all those who made donations! I'm more grateful than I can possibly say. So I was all set to move at the very beginning of June. And then my bad health grew steadily worse. I was unable to do anything in the way of moving preparation. And then the rectal bleeding started. Sorry for the perhaps unpleasant detail, but it was the bleeding -- bright red blood! and lots of it! -- that made me think that the time to call 911 was once again upon me. I still waited a couple of days, but I felt so, so awful and was so unnerved by the sight of all that blood, that I finally made the call.<br /><br />
I was in the hospital for the better part of a week. It turns out that the rectal bleeding was not a cause for major concern -- upper and lower g.i.s revealed nothing of serious import. And the bleeding stopped. But there was other medical news. Yes, there was. It was bad. Very bad.<br /><br />
More on that another time. I'm still not ready to discuss it like "an adult," whatever the fuck that means. But I'm not going to die in the immediate future. Well, any of us <i>could</i> die in the next few seconds, but if we have no particular reason to think that, then it's not at all likely. Or even reasonably possible. With my heart condition and related issues, the odds of my dying soon are certainly increased, but not to the extent that I expect to die this year, or even in the next few years. If I'm very careful, and the gods are kind. But the gods haven't been all that kind of late, have they? Fuckers.<br /><br />
So I'm still in the middle of this move. My current (that is, old) landlord has been very kind, and hasn't pressured me at all about getting out of here quickly. To some extent, he's obliged to be accommodating, since it's obvious that other tenants also stayed well past the move-out date of June 5; in fact, my next door neighbor is still here as I write this, although he appears to be making moving-type noises today. And I suspect this week is it. I also don't want to be the lone tenant in this building for more than a couple of nights. Just doesn't feel safe to me.<br /><br />
I may need to make a payment to the old landlord; after all, I have remained a full month past the move-out date. So that's an expense I hadn't counted on. I also have to pay July rent to the new landlord this week. Since I remain in a very weakened state, useless for anything connected to moving, the expenses for moving/junk hauling/etc. are likely to be more than I'd expected. Oh, another unexpected expense: prescriptions. I got a bunch of 'em. Haven't had them filled yet, since I don't want to spend the money when I still have this goddamned incomplete move looming over me.<br /><br />
Therefore, once again -- and with my heartfelt,angst-ridden apology for this miserable broken record -- I could certainly use some financial support. I would be very deeply grateful.<br /><br />
Oh, I haven't addressed "why hospitals suck," as my title promises. Well, you know why. As the sage remarked: "When you're sick, especially if you're seriously sick, the very worst place to be is a hospital." When they discharged me, I told them I thought there was something wrong that was just beginning to surface. They ignored me, of course. They ignored me in the particular way doctors ignore you: they act as if they're taking your comments seriously, and may even use an instrument or two to show they're even acting on the basis of your comments. Isn't that wonderful? And then they say it's nothing, you're fine, good to go, shut up, free up the bed, and get the hell out of here.<br /><br />
So I got the hell out of there -- and, sure enough, less than a day later a humongous, horrible, terrible, awful chest/sinus/everything cold/flu erupted. Two weeks later, and I'm still not over it. Sleep is very difficult, impossible for the most part lying down. Feels like I'm suffocating. Have to sit up. Thanks, doc! I'd see you about this horrible cold/flu/whatever, but who knows what you'd give me for <i>that</i> visit? The hospital committed numerous other indignities upon my person, but ... ah, what's the point. The question I'm always left with (two questions) after these encounters with the medical profession: Are doctors predisposed to treating human beings who are effectively helpless in their hands so horribly -- or is this a skill they're taught? A combination of the two? And: Is it possible that doctors are actually unaware of how excruciatingly, nauseatingly awful they are in their dealings with other human beings?<br /><br />
I'm exhausted. Back to bed. Many thanks for your kindness and consideration.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-17203365785043977472019-05-16T09:41:00.000-07:002019-05-16T09:41:52.801-07:00CrisisI suppose some people might wonder why I'm not completely hysterical. Why would I be hysterical? The building where I've lived for 22 years is scheduled for demolition, and I have to be out of my apartment no later than June 4. At the moment, I have no new apartment to move into. So, I have two and a half weeks to find a new place, pack up all the stuff I've accumulated over the years (and throw away and/or give away a lot of books, CDs, and DVDs, among other things), and make the move happen.<br /><br />
The good news is that there are apartments available in a price range I should be able to manage (which is to say, the new rent would be very close to my current rent, perhaps $100-$200 more per month, but that would be manageable, once the relocation expenses are disbursed to me -- see below). The bad news: I have no money to pay for the security deposit and first month's rent, or to pay for the move and/or storage of my belongings. Why is that the case?<br /><br >
Regular readers will know that I'm entitled to a relocation allowance. Since I'm over 62 and have lived here so long, I will be getting $20,050. Some owners make it easy on their evicted tenants: they provide a check for the full amount to help with the move. Alternatively, the owners can set up an escrow account, which is what the owners of my building have done. And the way the escrow account is set up means that, in effect, the relocation allowance functions as a reimbursement system: once you've paid the expenses of the move (or any part of them), they will reimburse you upon presentation of an invoice, contract (<i>i.e.</i>, lease in this case), or something similar. So you have to have the money in order to get the required documentation, so that you can get the money. See how that works?<br /><br />
But I don't have the money. I've been round and round on this, and I can't make any headway. Up until last week, I thought I'd be able to work it out. I was wrong. So here I am, two and a half weeks away from life on the street. I've said it before, and I'll say it once again: I will not survive on the street. Given my health, homelessness is a death sentence, and probably one that would be actualized in very short order. Which, quite frankly, would be a blessing, if it came to that.<br /><br />
I don't believe for one moment that it has to come to that. You're doubtless wondering why this is happening at the very last minute, since I've known for a year about the forced eviction. Perhaps I haven't made clear just how bad my health is. Much of the time (and for most of the last year), it's all I can do to get out of bed for several hours a day, manage to eat a meal or two, and sit at the computer for a while. I kept thinking that I still had plenty of time -- and, honestly, a couple of months is plenty of time to move, I've done it in far less time than that, in fact, I've done it in a couple of weeks in the past -- and I also kept thinking that I just had to start feeling better soon. I never started feeling better.<br /><br />
So basically, I have to do my best to raise some money in very quick order. To cover the first month's rent, security deposit (assuming a rent of around $1,100-$1,200/month), and moving and storage expenses (assuming I have to store some items, as I'll probably be moving into a studio with less room than I have now), as well as contacting one of the services that come and pick up a bunch of junk and dispose of it, I'll need $3,500 to $4,000. I don't know if it's even possible to raise that much -- but I regularly see (we all regularly see) people raising far greater sums for projects that are often dubious, or at least questionable. My project is simple: it's my life. Without a new place to move into, I'm finished.<br /><br />
Now, I will be getting the $20,050 eventually, but to judge from the experience of other tenants who have already moved, I may not receive it nearly as quickly as I would wish. But I'll get it at some point. So I would be more than happy to agree with anyone who wished to make a donation for the purpose of this move that, once I've received the relocation funds, I'll refund the donation, plus an additional fee which you should feel free to suggest. If you want to do it that way, well, bless you, first of all, and just let me know. I'll send you an email confirming that I'll reimburse you for your donation once I have the funds.<br /><br />
A semi-related point: I held off on this post until today because I had made a deal with myself. Given my inability to write for most of the past year, I felt I had to publish at least one substantial new essay before regaling you with these tales of my wild adventures. I did <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2019/05/how-many-damn-fucking-times-do-i-have.html">that yesterday</a>, and I enjoyed putting that article together (although the idea of war resulting from "bad intelligence" utterly infuriates me). I felt I had to do that as a gesture of good faith, if you will. And even though I have an incredible amount of stuff to get done in the next few weeks, I'll try to publish at least a briefer post every two or three days, or however often I can manage it. Writing should be a welcome break from the tedious tasks associated with moving.<br /><br />
So that's what's happening here. Although I'm not hysterical, I certainly am experiencing a considerable amount of steady anxiety. Sleep does not come easily these days; sometimes it doesn't come at all. Wouldn't it be lovely if I'd received a check in the full amount of the relocation allowance several months ago? All this would have been avoided. Ah, well. I am still confident that I can make all this happen in the next few weeks. Once I have the necessary funds, if I have the necessary funds, it's all manageable, even if very tough and pressured.<br /><br />
Thank you for listening. Bless you for your support and concern. Many people have to deal with situations far more grueling than what I've described here. And I am very far from giving up. I still derive a great deal of pleasure from far too many aspects of the world to consider giving up at this point. And, big mouth that I am, I still have a lot to say on many subjects. (I'd publish all my notes from the past year or so if I thought they would be intelligible to anyone else. But they wouldn't be. Sometimes they're not even intelligible to me months after I made them. "What exactly was I thinking when I wrote that?" I'll sometimes wonder. I'm sure it was absolutely fascinating, but occasionally I'll have no idea at all what it was.)<br /><br />
All right. I'll shut up about all this now. Many, many thanks again.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-21196756283697496032019-05-15T10:13:00.000-07:002019-05-17T16:58:35.512-07:00How Many Damn Fucking Times Do I Have to Explain This?Please give your serious consideration to my profoundly upsetting personal dilemma. I am basically a serene, tranquil soul, trying my utmost best to navigate successfully (and serenely, and tranquilly) through a world beset with, well, insanity. Not merely insanity, but violent insanity. And not simply violent insanity, but violent insanity bolstered by nonstop hatred, and the desire to eliminate all traces of "the Other." And "the Other" is anyone who does not belong <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/02/ravages-of-tribalism-iii-learning-to.html">to any particular individual's tribe</a>, however that tribe may be defined (on a racial, religious, political or other basis, and/or some combination of these factors). Such hatred and eliminationist desires are not conducive to sustaining and enhancing serenity and tranquillity. Not hardly.<br /><br />
So there I am, minding my own tranquil affairs, when I happen upon an article in <i>The New Yorker.</i> <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/is-trump-yet-another-us-president-provoking-a-war">The article</a> concerns the question of whether Trump is leading the United States into a war with Iran, either intentionally or "inadvertently" (!!! -- more on that point in a moment). It begins with a hint of promise, <i>i.e.</i>, it appears the author might have more than a glancing familiarity with facts and history:<blockquote>The United States has a long history of provoking, instigating, or launching wars based on dubious, flimsy, or manufactured threats.</blockquote>Hey, not bad, you're thinking, right? The balance of the first paragraph and the second paragraph concern a confrontation with Iran that the Reagan administration engineered in 1986. The article presents a straightforward case of deliberate American provocation, which succeeded in getting the desired response.<br /><br />
Then we have the beginning of the third paragraph:<blockquote>The most egregious case was the U.S. invasion of Iraq, in 2003, which was based on bad intelligence that Baghdad had active weapons-of-mass-destruction programs. The repercussions are still playing out sixteen years (and more than four thousand American deaths) later.</blockquote>No. No, no, no, no, no, no. NO. O farewell, serenity! Tranquillity, farewell!<br /><br />Please note that these two sentences are the totality of what this author has to say in the article about the criminal and illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Yet these two sentences provide conclusive evidence that this author understands next to nothing about U.S. foreign policy and the forces that direct it, and also reveal that the author has entirely internalized (perhaps inadvertently!) the norms and values of American exceptionalism.<br /><br />
You may think that is a lot to claim on the basis of two sentences. I shall now explain. Take the first sentence: " The most egregious case was the U.S. invasion of Iraq, in 2003, <b>which was based on bad intelligence that Baghdad had active weapons-of-mass-destruction programs."</b>If you read commentary on current events with any regularity (and you have my utmost sympathy if you do, as well as my condolences for <i>your</i> lost serenity), you will recognize this formulation: it appears that many of our analysts and "experts" now attribute the invasion of Iraq to "bad intelligence."<br /><br />
Over a period of more than ten years, I have written numerous articles (at least 15 or 20 major essays, as well as many shorter entries) examining the entirely fraudulent nature of "intelligence" in general. I have also examined many particular instances of "intelligence" being entirely, often grievously wrong -- and "intelligence" is almost <i>always</i> wrong. Here, I will provide only a brief summary of the argument, but I will provide links for those who are interested in the details of the reasoning and evidence involved (either for the first time, or as a reminder).<br /><br />
From <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/08/you-too-can-and-should-be-intelligence.html ">"You, Too, Can and <i>Should</i> Be an 'Intelligence Analyst'"</a>:<b><blockquote><blockquote>Intelligence is completely irrelevant to major policy decisions. Such decisions are matters of <i>judgment,</i> and knowledgeable, ordinary citizens are just as capable of making these determinations as political leaders allegedly in possession of "secret information." Such "secret information" is almost always wrong -- and major decisions, including those pertaining to war and peace, are made entirely apart from such information in any case.<br /><br />The second you start arguing about intelligence, you've given the game away once again. This is a game the government and the proponents of war will <i>always</i> win. By now, we all surely know that if they want the intelligence to show that Country X is a "grave" and "growing" threat, they will find it or manufacture it. So once you're debating what the intelligence shows or fails to show, the debate is over. The war will inevitably begin.</blockquote>...<br /><br />To repeat: the decision to go to war is one of <i>policy,</i> and the intelligence -- whatever it is alleged to show -- is irrelevant. Don't argue in terms of intelligence at all. If you do, you'll lose. The administration knows that; many of its opponents still haven't figured it out, even now.</blockquote></b>In the same article, I later wrote:<blockquote><b>I therefore repeat my major admonition, and give it special emphasis:<blockquote>NEVER, EVER ARGUE IN TERMS OF INTELLIGENCE AT ALL.</blockquote> It is always irrelevant to major policy decisions, and such decisions are reached for different reasons altogether. This is true whether the intelligence is correct or not, and it is almost always wrong. On those very rare occasions when intelligence is accurate, it is likely to be disregarded in any case. It will <i>certainly</i> be disregarded if it runs counter to a course to which policymakers are already committed.<br /><br />The intelligence <i>does not matter.</i> It is primarily used as propaganda, to provide alleged justification to a public that still remains disturbingly gullible and pliable -- and it is used <i>after the fact,</i> to justify decisions that have already been made.</b></blockquote>For newer readers, here are two notable statements of this principle that I have often referenced. From Barbara Tuchman:<blockquote><b> Acquiescence in Executive war, [Fulbright] wrote, comes from the belief that the government possesses secret information that gives it special insight in determining policy. Not only was this questionable, but major policy decisions turn "not upon available facts but upon judgment," with which policy-makers are no better endowed than the intelligent citizen. Congress and citizens can judge "whether the massive deployment and destruction of their men and wealth seem to serve the overall interests as a nation."<br /><br />...<br /><br />The belief that government knows best was voiced just at this time by Governor Nelson Rockefeller, who said on resumption of the bombing, "We ought to all support the President. He is the man who has all the information and knowledge of what we are up against." This is a comforting assumption that relieves people from taking a stand. It is usually invalid, especially in foreign affairs. "Foreign policy decisions," concluded Gunnar Myrdal after two decades of study, "are in general much more influenced by irrational motives" than are domestic ones.</b></blockquote>From Gabriel Kolko:<blockquote><b>It is all too rare that states overcome illusions, and the United States is no more an exception than Germany, Italy, England, or France before it. The function of intelligence anywhere is far less to encourage rational behavior--although sometimes that occurs--than to justify a nation's illusions, and it is the false expectations that conventional wisdom encourages that make wars more likely, a pattern that has only increased since the early twentieth century. By and large, US, Soviet, and British strategic intelligence since 1945 has been inaccurate and often misleading, and although it accumulated pieces of information that were useful, the leaders of these nations failed to grasp the inherent dangers of their overall policies. When accurate, such intelligence has been ignored most of the time if there were overriding preconceptions or bureaucratic reasons for doing so.</b></blockquote> Many (most) people (doubtless including the author of <i>The New Yorker</i> article) will nonetheless insist that "intelligence" is of vital significance, and that it depends on specialized knowledge, <i>i.e.</i>, "secret information." That, too, is a lie. Here is Ray McGovern, who worked for the CIA (also excerpted in my article, "<a href=" http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/08/you-too-can-and-should-be-intelligence.html">You, Too, Can and Should Be an 'Intelligence Analyst</a>'"):<blockquote>The craft of CIA analysis was designed to be an all-source operation, meaning that we analysts were responsible - and held accountable - for assimilating information from all sources and coming to judgments on what it all meant. We used data of various kinds, from the most sophisticated technical collection platforms, to spies, to - not least - open media.<br /><br />
<b>Here I must reveal a trade secret and risk puncturing the mystique of intelligence analysis. Generally speaking, 80 percent of the information one needs to form judgments on key intelligence targets or issues is available in open media. It helps to have been trained - as my contemporaries and I had the good fortune to be trained - by past masters of the discipline of media analysis, which began in a structured way in targeting Japanese and German media in the 1940s. But, truth be told, anyone with a high school education can do it. It is not rocket science.</b></blockquote>As I noted in the earlier article, after much additional reading and analysis, I concluded that the 80% figure is almost certainly too low; I now think the more accurate figure would be 90%, or even 95%.<br /><br />
For still more about the colossal fraud of "intelligence," I refer you to "<a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/12/played-for-fools-yet-again-about-that.html">Played for Fools Yet Again: About that Iran 'Intelligence' Report</a>," which contains a lengthy excerpt from Chalmers Johnson about the decades-long failures of the intelligence agencies. You can also consult "'<a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2014/01/secret-information-giving-up-your-life.html">Secret Information': Giving Up Your Life for a Vicious Lie</a>." The first half of this essay describes how the pattern of willingly and enthusiastically providing obedience to authority figures, in part because the young child believes the authority figures' claims that they have "secret information" denied to the child, is set in very early childhood, while the second half examines how the "intelligence" fraud cashes in on the severe damage inflicted on the child, now that she/he is an adult.<br /><br />
As for the claim that the invasion of Iraq resulted from "bad intelligence": c'mon. I mean, <i>c'mon.</i>Millions of people around the world passionately protested against the imminent invasion of Iraq. It was entirely obvious to them that Iraq represented no serious threat to the U.S., as that fact was obvious to anyone with ten functioning brain cells. Moreover, a multitude of evidence establishes beyond all question that the Bush administration knew Iraq represented no serious threat to the U.S. The decision to invade and occupy Iraq was one of <i>policy</i> -- a policy to which the key players had been committed since the early 1990s. They made no secret about it; to the contrary, they announced their preferred policy for the Middle East at every opportunity. That policy, in brief, was that the United States had the right (and the responsibility, they would often add) to shake up and rearrange the Middle East as the U.S. determined was necessary. To be clear: this policy was a fully bipartisan affair, and a policy to which both Democrats and Republicans (with a few notable exceptions) were fully committed.<br /><br />
As noted above, <b>the intelligence did not matter</b>, whatever it may have shown. The decision was one of policy, period. In some of my essays mentioned above, I noted that I was well aware that my views about "intelligence" were those of a small minority, and that I was astonished by how difficult it was to convince people even to consider altering their traditional view. Moreover, I have continued to watch as some people who have finally agreed me about this quickly revert to their previous, standard opinion about "intelligence," after some time has gone by. All of this confirms my view on another, related subject: that the damage inflicted on us as young children can last a lifetime. In this case, as in almost every case, the child is taught that <i>obedience to authority</i> is the primary virtue. The child is also taught that the authority figures in its life have "secret information" that is utterly inaccessible to her/him, and that she/he must therefore trust them completely, without any question whatsoever. This perfectly maps the adult's conviction that "important" government officials are privy to information that informs their decisions, information to which ordinary citizens can never have access, and that we must therefore obey the officials without question. Most people are unable to alter these beliefs to any significant degree once they are adults.<br /><br />
That most people still fail to grasp this issue results in one small benefit for the perceptive observer: watching "serious" writers, like the <i>New Yorker</i> author, eagerly offering an explanation of the Iraq war which is George W. Bush's <i>preferred defense:</i> Hey, don't blame me! The intelligence made me do it! I suspect the <i>New Yorker</i> writer would not consciously choose to provide succor and comfort to Bush in this manner -- but that is precisely what she has done.<br /><br />
I will mention only briefly one aspect of the <i>New Yorker</i> article which reveals the author's bias to the careful reader. In addition to the Iran episode involving the Reagan administration and Iraq, the article mentions the Vietnam War, the Spanish-American War, and the Mexican-American War. I feel compelled to mention that a much more colorful discussion of the loathsome lies and intentions behind the Mexican-American War will be found in Hampton Sides' work, which I excerpted <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2006/11/american-myth-continued-conquest-and.html">here</a>. For example:<blockquote><b> The simple truth was, Polk wanted more territory. No president in American history had ever been so frank in his aims for seizing real estate. ...<br /><br />
Perhaps to dignify the nakedness of Polk's land lust, the American citizenry had got itself whipped into an idealistic frenzy, believing with an almost religious assurance that its republican form of government and its constitutional freedoms should extend to the benighted reaches of the continent then held by Mexico, which, with its feudal customs and Popish superstitions, stood squarely in the way of Progress. To conquer Mexico, in other words, would be to do it a favor.</b></blockquote>Do you notice any significant omissions from the article's list of the U.S.'s "long history of provoking, instigating, or launching wars based on dubious, flimsy, or manufactured threats"? I can think of two, neither of which is lost in the mists of time: Kosovo and Libya. Curious, that. Both of those war crimes were deliberately instigated under Democratic administrations, and very recent ones. Both involved a monumental series of lies, including claims of atrocities that never happened. ("Oh, but we <i>had</i> to stop a genocide!" Except the genocide <i>never happened.</i>) For a lengthy discussion of Kosovo, please consult <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/07/truth-shall-drive-you-mad-wise-men-and.html">this post</a>; on Libya, you may consult "<a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2011/08/if-pictures-were-arguments.html">If Pictures Were Arguments ...</a>"<br /><br />
Let's turn our attention to the second of the <i>New Yorker</i>'s sentences about the vast war crime of the Iraq invasion and occupation: "The repercussions are still playing out sixteen years (and more than four thousand American deaths) later." Here, the <i>New Yorker</i> writer has adopted an additional role. You may remember the old joke about the attorney who gestures to his client, a young man who is accused of brutally murdering both his parents, and who is obviously and unquestionably guilty. "But Your Honor! Surely we must be able to show some compassion. He is barely a young man, he's only 23 -- and he's all alone in the world. He's an orphan!" Yeah, it's truly heartbreaking to see the pain of a vicious murderer over the crimes he reveled in committing.<br /><br />
Four thousand entirely unnecessary American deaths is certainly a tragedy -- although it must always be kept in mind that the U.S. was the aggressor in a war of choice, a war of aggression against a non-existent threat. And there is no draft; therefore, every American soldier involved in the Iraq invasion and occupation was there by choice. No, that is not the end of the inquiry; these moral questions of responsibility and judgment are complex. "<a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/05/no-i-do-not-support-troops.html">No, I Do <i>Not</i> Support 'The Troops</a>'" discusses these and related issues.<br /><br />
The <i>New Yorker</i> fails to mention that, in its brutal war of aggression, the U.S. completely destroyed an entire country, destabilized an already exceedingly dangerous area of the world -- and it unleashed <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/09/lets-make-it-about-you-can-we-stop.html">a genocide of world historical proportion</a>. This is not even acknowledged.<br /><br />
I confess that, even after many years of writing about these issues, this kind of self-blinded, narcissistic self-absorption, to the exclusion of even a passing awareness of the pain and horror our government inflicts around the world, still takes my breath away. I repeat here part of what I wrote in the essay linked immediately above. I include this excerpt because I think I utilized a strategy that is useful in trying to break through this wall of resistance:<blockquote>Since Americans' narcissism is so all-encompassing, and because the superior value of American lives and goals as compared to those of all other peoples is regarded as an axiom never to be questioned, let's put these horrors in terms that Americans might understand. Let's make it about <i>you.</i><br /><br />
For ease of computation, we'll use approximate figures. Assume the U.S.'s war crimes have resulted in one million deaths. That is roughly 1/26 of the total Iraqi population. An equivalent number of American deaths would be <i>11.5 million people.</i> 3,000 Americans were murdered on 9/11. In terms of casualties, 11.5 million deaths represent <i>3,800 9/11s</i> -- or a 9/11 <i>every day for ten and a half years.</i><br /><br />
Let me repeat that: <i>a 9/11 every day for ten and a half years.</i><br /><br />
Perhaps you think these casualty figures are highly inflated. Fine. Cut them in half. That's a 9/11 <i>every day for a little over five years.</i><br /><br />
<i>Every day.</i><br /><br />
Do you begin to understand now?</blockquote>
That the United States government is fully prepared to do this again, either with regard to Iran or perhaps, in time, elsewhere, is a crime so hideous as to be almost beyond contemplation. But make no mistake: whatever future conflicts may occur -- and barring the unimaginable case of another country attacking the U.S. (which, given the certainty of an utterly obliterating counterstrike from the U.S., would appear to be virtually impossible) -- they will not be "accidental" or "inadvertent." Every war the U.S. has ever fought was the result of deliberate calculation, often over an extended period of time, and a course decided upon to achieve certain desired goals (usually, territory coveted for resources and/or for the markets that would be provided to the U.S.). My series <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/05/dominion-over-world-ix-elites-who-rule.html">Dominion Over the World</a> contains nine essays which chart the development and implementation of the U.S. policy of global hegemony.<br /><br />
The bipartisan elite Establishment continues to believe that the U.S. is entitled to dictate events around the world. Yes, even the sainted Obama <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/05/songs-of-death.html">believes this one</a>. You cannot be elected to national office in this country unless you believe it. Oh, yes, the odd Senator or Representative might get through now and then -- you have to reinforce the people's faith in "democracy" and its wondrous workings! -- but that's not enough to change the direction of events. But if the U.S. government should go down this route once more, there will not be fires hot enough in Hell to punish their putrid, rotted souls.<br /><br />
P.S. If you found this post of interest and that it offered a perspective of some value, I hope you might consider making a donation to the blog. I'm in the midst of an emergency donation drive, necessitated by the fact that I (along with the other tenants in the building) am being evicted prior to the building's demolition. I have to be out of my apartment by June 4, and I don't have all the funds required for a new apartment and associated moving expenses. So, yes, it's a crisis. A fuller explanation is provided <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2019/05/crisis.html">here</a>. I would be most grateful for your consideration. Many, many thanks. (The PayPal donation button will be found in the upper righthand corner.) Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-34122196321697833372019-04-07T10:54:00.000-07:002019-04-07T10:54:18.644-07:00So Close, Yet So FarI offer my very deep and sincere thanks to those who made donations in response to <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2019/04/very-sick-very-scared.html">my post</a>. You've almost succeeded in pulling me away from the abyss of disaster. Unfortunately, I'm still $230.00 short of what I need for the April rent.<br /><br />
I would dearly love to be able to pay the rent by early Monday (tomorrow) morning. If I could do that, it would almost be as if I hadn't been late with the rent at all (almost). And since I will need the cooperation of my current landlord in making the move out of here, it would be wonderful if any further lateness could be avoided. Good relations can be crucial in situations like these, so any help in reaching the rental goal sometime today would be fantastic, and hugely appreciated. (And to be sure, it would still be greatly appreciated tomorrow!)<br /><br />
In addition to addressing all the tasks associated with the coming move, I'm also doing my best to get the writing started again. For the last month, I've had in mind a series of posts, with the working title, "Listen, While I Lie to You." These days, it seems to me that everywhere I turn, lies are the coin of the realm. It's true not only in politics -- although lies are obviously the common language of that corrupt trade (and one of the first articles in the series will be the completion of my discussion of the <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2019/03/twilight-zone-america.html">Cohen testimony</a>, and the avalanche of lies encountered in any discussion of the Russiagate controversy) -- but in science (or "science," as it should perhaps now be designated), and cultural events generally. And the theme of lies has many connections to much of my writing about the profoundly damaging lies inflicted on young children by parents and other authority figures. I think it will prove to be a rich area of exploration, and I already have seven prime examples ready for analysis.<br /><br />
So I'd like to get to all of that as quickly as I can, but the first step has to be taking care of the rent. Any help will be greeted with exclamations of joy, and any and all other indications of happiness you deem appropriate (or inappropriate, as the case may be).<br /><br />
Thank you, as always. Your kindness and generosity continue to overwhelm me.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-2464583725187022112019-04-05T11:07:00.000-07:002019-04-05T11:09:06.825-07:00Very Sick, Very ScaredSo. The last several months have been especially awful health-wise. And the last couple of weeks ... on some days, I could barely get out of bed at all. Simply exhausted, and felt terrible. Barely ate, too, which probably was no help. Anyway, over the last few days, I've become a bit more mobile, and then last night I realized ...<br /><br />
Today is the fifth of the month, the last day on which I can pay my rent without being officially late. And I'm about $1,000 short of what I need. If you add in internet and phone service, it's closer to $1,200. The situation would be worse than that, but for a very kind donor who recently made a donation which will cover food for most of the month.<br /><br />
I will contact the property manager in a while, to let him know the rent payment will be late. He and I have a good relationship, and I've only been late a couple of times in the last few years. So it shouldn't be a problem if I get the money together by Monday or Tuesday. But if it's later than that, I'll probably be in serious trouble. Remember: we only have until June 5 to get out of this building, so they can tear it down, put up an immensely more profitable building, and charge two or three times the current rents. If they can evict anyone for nonpayment of rent, they might leap at the chance. So I'd like to avoid that, if at all possible.<br /><br />
My very bad health also means that I'm way behind in finding a new place to live. Two months left! I think I'm so unnerved at this point that I'm approaching numbness. I shall simply have to pull myself together as best I can, and get on with it. (I have identified several good possibilities for a new place, but haven't yet been able to follow through on them.)<br /><br />
And I had planned a lot of writing for March. I truly had. This weekend, I'll go back over my notes and see if I can revive some of it. And start publishing some posts, and acting as if I'm not dead yet. 'Cause, you know, I'm not.<br /><br />
If you can help out with the financial situation, that would be great. Given my health, homelessness would be ... well, I won't say that, but you probably know what I'm thinking.<br /><br />
My deepest thanks, as always. Bless you for your kindness.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-80920352515336251362019-03-03T12:23:00.001-08:002019-03-03T12:23:13.725-08:00Help! PleaseI've just published two posts. Two posts in a day! That hasn't happened in a while. I repeat that I meant it when I said a few months ago that I wanted to return to regular posting. I'm off to a decent start, while recognizing that it is only that, a start. The first post concerns <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2019/03/twilight-zone-america.html">Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony</a> and related political matters; the second is about how remarkable animals are, and <a href="https://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2019/03/mamas-last-hug.html">how much we can learn from them</a> (a <i>lot</i>). I've already done some work on the second part of the Cohen essay; I'll publish it tomorrow or Tuesday.<br /><br />
Meanwhile, I am almost completely broke. I mean, <i>completely.</i> I rely entirely on donations to the blog for my income. Since posting has been very sparse in recent months, there have not been many donations. If it were not for 10-15 regular donors -- those people I regard as my personal angels -- I would have been out of business (in every sense) some time ago.<br /><br />
But I have no funds to pay the March rent, or for internet service, or for the phone, or for food. This is, as they say, BIG, SERIOUS TROUBLE. If you can help, in any amount at all, I will be deeply, eternally grateful.<br /><br />
And there will be quite a lost of posting in the coming weeks.<br /><br />
I also have to find a new home, so that I can move by the end of May. (They've finally scheduled this building for demolition, in case you missed that bit of news.) I admit I'm consumed by anxiety on that front, for several reasons. Sometimes I just want to scream for about 20 minutes, and/or break a lot of dishes. Hmm ... well, I'll hold off on that. For the moment.<br /><br />
Many thanks again for any help you may be able to provide. I'm enormously grateful for your understanding and patience.<br /><br />
Thank you.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-77986698529842479112019-03-03T12:01:00.000-08:002019-03-03T12:01:13.740-08:00Mama's Last HugAfter contemplating the fetid swamp of Michael Cohen's <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2019/03/twilight-zone-america.html">testimony and related matters</a>, we need a brief respite. Try this, the opening of <a href=" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/books/review/frans-de-waal-mamas-last-hug.html">a book review</a> from the <i>New York Times</i>:<blockquote>The two old friends hadn’t seen each other lately. Now one of them was on her deathbed, crippled with arthritis, refusing food and drink, dying of old age. Her friend had come to say goodbye. At first she didn’t seem to notice him. But when she realized he was there, her reaction was unmistakable: Her face broke into an ecstatic grin. She cried out in delight. She reached for her visitor’s head and stroked his hair. As he caressed her face, she draped her arm around his neck and pulled him closer.<br /><br />
The mutual emotion so evident in this deathbed reunion was especially moving and remarkable because the visitor, Dr. Jan Van Hooff, was a Dutch biologist, and his friend, Mama, was a chimpanzee. The event — recorded on a cellphone, shown on TV and widely shared on the internet — provides the opening story and title for the ethologist Frans de Waal’s game-changing new book, “Mama’s Last Hug: Animal Emotions and What They Tell Us About Ourselves.”</blockquote>The review is fascinating, and the book sounds utterly absorbing. By the way, the review includes the video of the deathbed reunion. Please watch it; it's one of those episodes which genuinely cannot be missed. It's deeply moving, and completely heartbreaking.<br /><br />
And please be sure not to miss the concluding paragraphs of the review, which describe a similar reunion experienced by the reviewer -- but not with a chimpanzee. I find all of it endlessly fascinating.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-8013394052503002342019-03-03T10:11:00.001-08:002019-03-03T12:46:37.626-08:00Twilight Zone AmericaAs I watched Michael Cohen's testimony before Congress last week, the thought forcibly struck me over and over again that we are truly blessed to live in a country with such a magnificent government. How remarkable, that this large assemblage of astonishingly gifted public servants should peacefully gather together despite their passionately held, often conflicting convictions. And how additionally remarkable that they were all so unfailingly civil to one another, again despite the fact that their aims and goals in this proceeding were often directly opposed. Why, there has never been such a government, and it is difficult if not impossible to imagine that another such might ever exist upon Earth. And these people! Such people! <a href=" https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/ebcdcec3-0cc5-4d79-bf2e-a04322a1ab0e ">People so lofty, they sound as if they shit marble!</a><br /><br />
Yeah. Okay. Let's be serious. I would expect anyone over the age of six or seven (and I may thereby be insulting intelligent five-year-olds) to have been devastatingly appalled by the spectacle of the Cohen hearing. The fiction was that Cohen's testimony and questioning were for the purpose of determining certain matters of controversy concerning the President of the United States. The proceedings themselves made painfully clear that no one cared about gaining a fuller understanding of the matters in question. The Democrats already knew the truth, and nothing Cohen said (or didn't say) would alter their view. Ditto for the Republicans. I don't mind a little political theater, but I prefer that such theater be somewhat more literate than what was on offer. It would probably be too much to hope for a twist or two, but that certainly would have offered momentary relief from the unrelenting tedium of what transpired. As for the questioners ... well. I will endeavor to be polite (I can do that when pressed): with perhaps one or two exceptions (although no names suggest themselves to me at the moment), the Representatives made it impossible to avoid the conclusion that they simply aren't, well, terribly bright.<br /><br />
And then there is Michael Cohen himself, this pathetic, repellent wreck of a man who never was. The tiresome Sad Sack act -- this bumbling, inept creature who is so, <i>so</i> sorry about everything (except for the acts of repentance he's now being forced to perform, which are ennobled by his immense suffering, including the fact that he's so, <i>so</i> sorry about everything) -- was clearly designed to convince all of us that he couldn't actually cause anyone any harm. It reminds me of Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) at the very <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYDxxHrlmUg">end of <i>Psycho</i></a>: "I hope they are watching. They'll see. They'll see and they'll know, and they'll say, 'Why, she wouldn't even harm a fly.'" What can be brilliant in art, can be deeply sickening in real life. So it is here: the person who slashes people to death, but who wouldn't even harm a fly.<br /><br />
I do give Cohen full credit for one aspect of his performance: his face. He provided strong evidence for the truth of Orwell's observation that, "At 50, everyone has the face he deserves." A puffy, bloated mound of flesh that can barely resolve itself into a recognizable shape, with the corners of his mouth drooping so low they practically reach the floor. For the most part, Cohen maintained his quiet, Sad Sack, droopy-mouthed demeanor, but there were a few moments when he became somewhat more animated. This occurred when he was annoyed or angered by a particular remark -- and at those moments, we got a small taste of the kind of fixer Cohen was in days gone by. At those moments, his face assumed shape and had purpose, and the purpose was <i>to destroy you</i>: "So I’m warning you, tread very fucking lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be fucking disgusting. <a href="http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/05/listen-to-michael-cohen-make-unhinged-threats-to-a-reporter.html">You understand me?”</a><br /><br />
In one part of his prepared remarks, Cohen described various misdeeds and possibly criminal acts committed by Donald Trump, followed by the comment, "and yet, I continued to work for him." He repeated this several times. If you wanted to present the strongest possible case against Trump, and certainly the Democrats do, you would turn Cohen's rhetorical device on its head. Point the observation in the other direction: despite Cohen being a thug, a fixer, a profligate liar, a man devoured by greed for power and money, with a lust for commanding others to obey his orders <i>or else</i> -- despite all that, <i>Trump continued to employ him.</i> We can state the proposition more strongly still: it is precisely <i>because</i> of all those qualities that Trump continued to employ him. That is very damning indeed, and mounds of evidence support its truth. Why didn't the Democrats make this point? Ah, but you see the problem: they want us to <i>believe</i> Cohen and what he tells us about Trump. It's exceedingly difficult to ask us to credit Cohen's testimony while simultaneously telling us that Cohen is a loathsome human being, so obviously loathsome that his continued employment for over a decade reveals Trump to be a loathsome human being as well. It's a tricky business, and it's interesting to watch people try to walk that tightrope.<br /><br />
As for Cohen's lying, it isn't simply that he lied a lot. He lied <i>all the time.</i> So how can we now believe him about anything? We can't. Despite that, I acknowledge that much of what he said about Trump is true. Trump is unquestionably a liar himself, a cheat, a fraud, a conman. But I don't believe that because Cohen says so; I believe it because huge amounts of other evidence attest to the accuracy of those characterizations. And it has been possible to make such judgments about Trump for many years. This is hardly a recent development, and these are not traits that Trump acquired in the last four or five years.<br /><br />
What is the significance of such judgments about Trump? It's intriguing that very few commentators have reflected on this question in any detail. Sure, they'll say it's terrible, it's awful, we can't have a President like that, and so on. But what does that mean exactly? One of the very few writers I've come across in the last several days who did address this issue is Peggy Noonan. Noonan is a conservative, of course, although never a Trump supporter to my knowledge. But I don't think she's a committed anti-Trumper, either, although I don't follow her closely enough to know for certain. (With only a few exceptions, I don't follow any commentators that closely; I don't have the patience any longer, and life is far too short.) And Noonan can often be odious. But she is an intelligent woman, and occasionally she is very perceptive on particular issues.<br /><br />
And to give credit where it's due -- hold onto your hats, because this is to give some credit to Reagan, too (on this one matter!) -- she did write the speech about the Challenger tragedy. You can <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa7icmqgsow">watch the speech</a> (it's short). The conclusion of the brief remarks is memorable, and very moving:<blockquote>The crew of the space shuttle Challenger honored us by the manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and "slipped the surly bonds of earth" to "touch the face of God."</blockquote>(Here's <a href="https://tinyurl.com/yxmp4sw2">an interesting article</a> about how Noonan was selected to write the speech, and how the speech took shape.)<br /><br />
Here is the passage of interest <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/michael-cohen-makes-history-11551397848">from Noonan's column</a> about the Cohen testimony: <blockquote>Mr. Cohen implied the president’s Russian policies are not and never have been on the up-and-up: “Mr. Trump knew of and directed the Trump-Moscow negotiations throughout the campaign, and lied about it. He lied because he never expected to win the election. He also lied about it because he stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars on the Moscow real-estate project.” Mr. Cohen said he came to see the president’s true character: “Since taking office he has become the worst version of himself. . . . Donald Trump is a man who ran for office to make his brand great, not to make our country great. He had no desire or intention to lead this nation—only to market himself and to build his wealth and power. Mr. Trump would often say, the campaign is going to be the ‘greatest infomercial in political history.’ He never expected to win the primary. He never expected to win the general election. The campaign—for him—was always a marketing opportunity."<br /><br />
None of these charges were new, precisely. They have been made in books, investigations and interviews both on and off the record. What is amazing though is that such a rebuke—such an <i>attack</i> on the essential nature of a president, and by an intimate—has no equal in our history. I don’t think, as we talk about Mr. Cohen’s testimony, we fully appreciate this. John Dean said there was a cancer growing in the presidency. He didn’t say Richard Nixon <i>was</i> the cancer. He didn’t say the president was wicked and a fraud.<br /><br />
This is bigger than we think, and history won’t miss the import of this testimony.</blockquote>I don't think Noonan's claim that "such a rebuke ... has no equal in our history" is accurate, unless she's relying on the fact that no such claim has been made "by an intimate" of the president. And her parsing of Dean's comment about "a cancer growing in the presidency" is a little too cute. But set that aside for the moment. What is interesting is her identification of the nature of Cohen's attack: that it is an attack <i>"on the essential nature of a president."</i> Cohen maintains that a racist, a liar, a cheat, a fraud, and a conman is president. In short, Cohen believes that a criminal is in the White House. And that, apparently, is what the Democrats (and anti-Trumpers generally) want us to believe.<br /><br />
If that's true, and if it represents a unique and fateful development in the history of the United States, shouldn't we be taking immediate action? Forget impeachment. How about massive civil disobedience? How about a crowd of a million or more Americans in the streets of Washington, D.C., a crowd that refuses to leave until Trump resigns? <i>A criminal in the White House?</i> Doesn't that require action <i>right now?</i><br /><br />
Yet, in our culture, this story is merely another "hot" story of the moment. Interest in the Cohen appearance is already beginning to fade. We'll soon be consumed by some other "hot" story that will demand endless commentary and numerous columns, probably by the end of the coming week if recent behavior is any guide. So, once again, we witness a disconnect of mammoth proportions, an abyss between the words that are employed and the behavior that is considered appropriate by way of response. This is simply another political food fight. A criminal in the White House? Good copy, a good topic for talk-show guests to opine on. It's just words, after all.<br /><br />
There is yet another problem. Let's assume that Cohen's attack "on the essential nature" of Trump is entirely accurate. Would that mean that this development -- that a repellent criminal is president, and he continues to commit misdeeds and crimes to this day -- is <i>unique</i> in our history? No, it doesn't mean that at all. It is most definitely <i>not</i> unique, very far from it. But that is a truth most people refuse to acknowledge, because to do so would fundamentally threaten their entire belief system.<br /><br />
That requires some explanation. Next time! (Very soon, in the next day or so.)<br /><br />
P.S. If you found this post of interest, I hope you might consider making a donation to the blog. I'm in desperate need of funds at the moment. I have no money at all for March rent, internet, food, and a few other basic necessities. The situation is dire in the extreme. Donations in any amount will be received with enormous gratitude, and wild dancing. Well, maybe not <i>wild</i>. Please see <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2019/03/help-please.html">here</a> for further details. Many thanks for your consideration. (The PayPal donation button will be found in the upper righthand corner.)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-68546089031071707182019-02-04T15:52:00.001-08:002019-02-04T16:03:08.559-08:00Concerning Moral Judgment, and Moral MonstersIf we are to consider the particular question of moral judgment that concerns me here, we must first identify a preliminary issue -- and then, as abhorrent as we may find it in many respects, we must set that issue aside, albeit in a strictly limited sense. That preliminary issue is this: how do we judge a person who orders that certain actions be undertaken, knowing that those actions will necessarily and unavoidably lead to the death of at least one (and, most typically, more than one) entirely innocent human being? I must add an especially pertinent fact: nothing compels the person to order that these actions be undertaken. That is, the person orders the actions freely, voluntarily and consciously, aware of what he/she is doing. That the person in question may try to convince him/herself (and others) that circumstances exist that compel him/her to take these actions is of no matter; murderers always have justifications.<br /><br />
Most people would agree that such a person has placed him/herself beyond the bounds of civilized society. Persons of this kind have arrogated to themselves the power of life and death: they claim the right to determine who shall live and who shall die, and there is no recourse to their decision. They will order that innocent human beings shall die -- and there is not a damned thing you or anyone else can do to stop it. This is a claim of <i>absolute power.</i> Full stop.<br /><br />
Now, consider: such a claim has been made, implicitly and/or explicitly, by every President of the United States since World War II. When you consider all the interventions, both overt and covert, engaged in by the U.S. around the world from the mid-20th century onward, there can be no question about this. (The same is true of most, if not all, of the Presidents prior to World War II; we will not review all of U.S. history here. But the proposition is painfully, obviously true since the end of the Second World War.)<br /><br />
What moral judgment can we legitimately make at this point? This one: all the Presidents of the United States since the end of World War II have been moral monsters. To order actions that you <i>know</i> will lead to the death of even one innocent human being, when you could choose differently or even refrain from acting altogether, is utterly damnable, and entirely unforgivable. How do you make amends to the husband or wife left behind, or to the children without a mother or father, or to any of the other survivors? How do you find forgiveness for ending the life of a single, precious, irreplaceable human being?<br /><br />
So we are left with a procession of moral monsters, who are "honored" as leaders of a "great" nation. The newest members of this procession are Barack Obama and Donald J. Trump. Make no mistake: they are <i>both</i> moral monsters. They <i>both</i> have the blood of innocents on their hands, many times over. Some may conclude that the depravity evidenced by their actions exiles both of them to the underworld of the damned and further moral distinctions are meaningless, and even offensive.<br /><br />
In one sense, I would not argue against that perspective. In fact, before proceeding, I will insist that we recognize the immense evil represented by anyone who wishes to be Commander in Chief of an Empire of Evil, an empire founded on compulsion, violence, suffering, torture and death. No one chooses to lead such an empire <i>innocently.</i> And yet, there is a sense in which one of these two most recent members of the Procession of the Damned is worse than the other.<br /><br />
I was prompted to reflect on these matters when I reread a striking passage from Franz Kafka. I had placed the passage at the beginning <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2016/11/in-search-of-axe-for-frozen-sea-within.html">of an essay</a> a little over two years ago. As a writer, I feel that I am always in search of Kafka's axe. These thoughts are my fumbling attempt to find an axe that might be of some momentary use. In today's world, particularly when one considers matters of political import, we need such axes every day, and usually many times a day. If we are not on constant guard, the frozen sea will inexorably overtake us. And we will die. Even if our physical form should survive, we will be dead spiritually. Perhaps that form of death is the only one that ultimately matters. Since most people fail to recognize the crucial importance of Kafka's axe, our prospects are grim. Surely this is not news.<br /><br />
After I reread the Kafka passage and thought about it for a while, I continued reading my essay. I didn't remember exactly what I had said about the Kafka excerpt, or why I thought the passage was especially revelatory. The major part of the earlier essay concerned a <i>New York Times</i> story about Trump, and how certain of Trump's policies built upon and <i>were made possible by</i> policies carefully and diligently pursued by Obama. Of course, for the <i>Times</i> the problem was not that Obama first chose and followed such policies, but that a man like Trump subsequently inherited them. In discussing the <i>Times'</i> treatment, I wrote:<blockquote>Note the critical phrases: the Trump administration "will find some assistance in <i>a surprising source"</i>; Obama "and his successors <i>could be trusted to use them prudently"</i>; "policies that Mr. Obama endorsed as lawful and legitimate <i>for sparing use."</i> In two brief paragraphs, the article depicts Obama as "prudent," a man of wisdom and restraint who can "be trusted" to use frightening and lethal powers "sparingly." And, of course, Trump is none of those things. For the <i>Times,</i> we should be terrified of the man who would make greater use of these powers, but <i>not</i> of the man who established the legality and legitimacy of such powers in the first instance.</blockquote>I also discussed how the Obama administration claimed it had the "right" to murder anyone in the world, any time it wished, for any reason it chose or invented, and that it need never tell anyone about its actions or the reasoning behind them. The Obama administration claimed <i>absolute power,</i> the power of life and death itself. About this, I said:<blockquote>You can appreciate how difficult the truth would make the <i>Times' </i> unceasing efforts to portray Obama as a "prudent," restrained and wise leader, one who can be trusted with all-encompassing power. If the nature and full meaning of Obama's policies are made explicit and if they are genuinely understood, we must conclude that Obama is a monster. When Trump uses the same powers -- and we can be certain he will -- he will be a monster, too. But he won't be the first one. ...<br /><br />
While the [<i>Times</i>] article makes the point that Obama fought against any legal finding that the policies in question are illegal, a battle which he won, the author works very hard to leave the impression that all would have been well, if only all future presidents were as "prudent" and "restrained" as Obama. With Trump's election, these calculations are invalidated. In this view, Trump is the problem, not Obama. <b>This narrative ignores completely the extent to which Obama devoted himself to making certain that these policies would become a permanent part of State power going forward.</b></blockquote>As I reread my previous essay (and there is much more detail in the full article), one thought kept repeating in my brain, growing steadily louder and more insistent: Why, Obama is <i>far worse</i> than Trump. It's obvious! Because Obama <i>knew what he was doing.</i><br /><br />
In this way, the <i>Times</i> makes such a judgment of Obama unavoidable. In its own way, it's perfect, and a powerful example of unintended just desserts: in its unceasing attempts to justify and idealize Obama, it presents all the evidence necessary to pass the most severe of negative judgments against him. Of course, such a judgment requires that one identify fully and truthfully the nature of Obama's policies -- and this, above all, is the identification that the <i>Times,</i> and most mainstream commentary, is resolutely determined to make impossible.<br /><br />
The most common criticisms of Trump reinforce the judgment that Obama is far more culpable than his successor. According to most commentary critical of Trump, he is either an idiot or crazy. Or both. Let's take those criticisms seriously: how much does an idiot or a crazy person understand about the nature of the policies he pursues? Any such understanding will be incomplete and even accidental, at best. But the <i>Times</i> and most commentators endlessly insist that Obama was brilliant, "prudent," and "restrained." Obama was aware of the great dangers represented by the policies he championed -- and yet he did all he could to make certain that those policies would be protected from all legal challenges, and that those policies would be permanently grafted onto the operations of the State. As for Trump, if his critics are to be believed, an achievement of that kind would be entirely beyond his abilities, strictly limited as they are by his idiocy and lunacy.<br /><br />
So there you have it: on the one hand, an idiotic lunatic who unquestionably represents great and lethal danger, given the immense, terrifying powers at his command -- and on the other, a thoughtful, knowledgeable, reflective and exceedingly careful president who made certain that such powers would be available to all subsequent Commanders in Chief. Who do you think is the guiltier of the two?<br /><br />
It's not even a close call.<br /><br />
********************<br /><br />
Many thanks to the six people who made donations in response to <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2019/02/serious-trouble-pain-hospital.html">my post yesterday</a>. I'm deeply grateful. I'm still $500.00 short of what I need for February rent and a couple of other first of the month bills. And if I can't pay the rent by the end of tomorrow ... well, it will be the beginning of very bad things. The pain is a bit less today -- hence, this post -- but it's still there. I'm still considering going to the ER in the next few days. We'll see how it goes. If I do go, it would be nice to have a little money for whatever prescriptions I might be given (it seems fairly obvious to me that a few prescriptions will be in order). At the moment, I can't afford to buy anything, including food. Donations in any amount will be hugely celebrated. And my gratitude will be immense. Thank you.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-35312317769872573802019-02-03T13:15:00.000-08:002019-02-03T13:15:55.601-08:00SERIOUS TROUBLE: Pain. Hospital. ???I haven't forgotten what I said about writing regularly in <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2019/01/practical-matters.html">my last post</a>, a month ago. I also haven't given up that commitment, despite the fact that my last post was published, well, a month ago. Unfortunately, my body and my physical health have been less than cooperative in recent weeks, to express the difficulty in the mildest of terms.<br /><br />
During the last several weeks, I've been in varying degrees of pain -- sometimes relatively mild, occasionally quite bad. My threshold for pain is very high. (I've learned this from medical episodes when doctors told me on several notable occasions that most patients would have been screaming, while I merely complained, albeit sometimes loudly and insistently.) But if the pain isn't substantially reduced this coming week, I think I'd better get myself to an ER to find out what the hell is going on. Regular readers will know that it takes a lot to get me to consider going to an ER, since my last experience with an ER and a brief hospital stay was utterly abysmal. But what I've been going through is precisely that: <i>a lot.</i><br /><br />
Here's an additional consideration. I would expect -- and hope -- that if I go to an ER, I would come away with one or two (or more) prescriptions, for pain, for the underlying malady(ies), etc. And I am almost completely broke. Until last evening, I was <i>completely</i> broke. But two very generous and kind people made donations, so I have some funds. However, the February rent is due -- so those donations go directly to the rent fund.<br /><br />
But I'm about $1,000 short of what I need for the rent and the other first of the month bills, internet and phone in particular. I'm not including food or incidentals in that. The thousand is for the most basic of expenses. And the rent must be paid this week (by the end of Tuesday, if at all possible), or I'm in a world of hurt (I suppose I should say, a second world of hurt, since I'm already in one).<br /><br />
As things stand now, I can't even afford to buy aspirin, let alone pay for prescription drugs. I need aspirin; I may need the prescription drugs. I may need them very badly. But if I have no money, there seems little point in bothering to go to the ER. Yeah, they'll keep me alive (we hope -- although I, and many others, are known to observe that when you're sick, the last place you want to be is in a hospital) -- but for what? So I can starve when I get home? (Oh, yeah: I have about two days' worth of food. That's it.)<br /><br />
So the situation is as my title has it: SERIOUS TROUBLE. If you are able to help, and would care to, I will be deeply, deeply grateful.<br /><br />
And in the next day or two, I'll even try to get a post or two done. Before the pain became a major interference with my functioning, I'd had a bunch of posts lined up. I meant it about writing regularly. And now, among other studies in subliterate idiocy, we have the Northam-blackface farrago. Honest to God, this culture is <i>exhausting.</i> I have some observations I'd like to make. I'll try.<br /><br />
In the meantime, if you can, please help. I desperately need it at the moment.<br /><br />
Many thanks for your time and consideration.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-29272372422211829852019-01-02T16:01:00.001-08:002019-01-02T16:01:14.737-08:00Practical MattersThere's a <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2019/01/reclaiming-my-sense-of-wonder.html">new post</a> directly below this one. As I was completing it, I thought: <i>Yes. I can still write.</i> Blessed relief.<br /><br />
That post explains what happened to me during December and the holidays. In short: nothing good. Health crises, and a spiritual crisis too (previously undiagnosed -- writing that post helped me identify it). I'm slowly beginning to get back on track, both to organize my apartment move in the next five months and to return to writing regularly. I'm working on several new posts at the moment. One of them (and probably more than one) deals with certain aspects of tribalism. Among other things, we will pay a visit to our old chum Andrew Sullivan; when it's not nauseating, his pitiful, ridiculous lack of self-awareness is instructive.<br /><br />
I didn't want to muck up the earlier post with details of my current financial state, so I'll divulge the unpleasant details here. I'm $700 short of what I need for the first of the month bills -- rent, power, internet, telephone. Ah, yes: food. Better make that $800. If at all possible, I should pay the rent by this Saturday; after that, the rent is technically late. Bad things may well ensue, possibly very bad things. My situation would have been considerably worse, were it not for a few very kind and welcome donations made in the past few weeks.<br /><br />
I am determined that this year will be very, very different from last year with regard to my writing -- primarily because I am determined to write <i>regularly.</i> There is more about that in the previous entry. To put it in different terms: if I'm going to survive this year (and the move), I <i>must</i> write regularly. I'm not ready to die -- and I'm also not ready to shut up, not just yet. I still have some things I want to say.<br /><br />
So if you can help out with this month's expenses, that would be wonderful indeed. I will be deeply grateful.<br /><br />
Many, many thanks for your time and your consideration.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-22313229253800995012019-01-02T15:18:00.000-08:002019-01-02T16:10:24.145-08:00Reclaiming My Sense of WonderI offer my very best wishes for the New Year to all of you who read this. I hope you had a joyous holiday season. My holidays were utterly dreadful. I had one major health crisis, and several minor health crises. I'm stable now, and sort of okay. Kind of. Most of December was spent in bed, often sleeping 14 to 16 hours a day. It wasn't exactly a restful, refreshing sleep, but more on the order of: <i>Can I manage to survive another day?</i> That sense of imminent, deadly peril is gone for the moment, thank God. Now I only have to deal with overwhelming anxiety, when I contemplate everything that must be done so that I can move to a new home by the beginning of June.<br /><br />
My holidays were additionally awful because of the piercing loneliness that has suffused my life since Sasha died, as I described in <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2018/12/in-hope-of-new-beginning.html">my last post</a>. I'm slowly learning how to work through (or around) that, but the tremendous sense of loss continues to overcome me at unpredictable times. I still think I see Sasha out of the corner of my eye now and then.<br /><br />
Life without cats is not my idea of life at all. But I can survive it. I suppose that was the theme of the holidays for me: <i>Can I survive this?</i> I did. Now I merely need to find a new place to live, clean up this apartment and pack up my belongings (I'll be getting rid of lots of stuff, including many books, CDs and DVDs), and then engineer the actual move. All of which seems close to impossible given my very bad health. Well, I have five months to get it done. I can get it done in very small increments, which is the only way I <i>can</i> get it done.<br /><br />
Speaking of moving: if anyone who sees this knows of apartments in the Los Angeles area (including the vast suburbs) that are cheap but livable, please do let me know (or if you know someone who knows someone who knows someone who might know). I've been in this apartment for 21 years. During that period, and in the last decade in particular, our corporatist fucking overlords (sorry, that "fucking" slipped out, but I mean it: <i>fuck</i> those corporatist fucking overlords) have priced apartments in Los Angeles proper into the realm of the ridiculous. Apartments that once rented for $600 or $700 a month now go for $2,000 and more. You're no doubt aware of the "housing crisis" afflicting many of our larger cities, a "crisis" by means of which the ruling class systematically destroys all those who do not belong to its anointed, blessed rank. If I were younger and healthier, it would be bad enough; in my current circumstances, it verges on fatally alarming.<br /><br />
But I am determined to survive this, too. I am not yet done here. Besides not being ready to die, I still feel the need to write more. I wasn't able to do the writing I had planned in December because of the intervening health crises. But I've started pulling together some new posts. I hope to complete a few of them soon. And my goal remains to resume writing and posting regularly. A few readers have told me that they intend to continue supporting me to the extent they can regardless of whether I ever write another word. I cannot tell you how profoundly moved I am by such a gesture, to say nothing of how deeply grateful I am for the help on a practical level.<br /><br />
But I realize that most readers prefer to support a writer who actually, you know, <i>writes.</i> And I myself would be ecstatic to be that writer again and, you know, actually <i>write.</i> <i>Regularly.</i> This entry will now go in a direction I had not anticipated when I began it. My reference to ecstasy caused me to look once more at an essay of mine that is among my own handful of favorites: "<a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/05/cultivate-your-sense-of-wonder-and-live.html">Cultivate Your Sense of Wonder, and Live Ecstatically</a>." Here are a few brief excerpts:<blockquote>If I had to select just a single word to express my deepest feeling about the world, and about humankind, it would be that one: wonder. I consider it a measure of how unevolved we are that so many people appear to be capable of that feeling only when they contemplate an imaginary, supernatural plane. It is hardly surprising that our world holds so much unnecessary suffering, when so many people are willing and eager to condemn it to second-rate status in favor of one they've made up out of whole cloth. ...<br /><br />
Extraordinary events have transpired in history before, and they might again. We need a miracle, but not one delivered to us from a supernatural realm: we require a miracle that <i>we</i> create.<br /><br />
It can happen. Hold on to your sense of wonder; if you do not have a sufficiently strong one, then develop it. For me, it is the most precious resource in the world.<br /><br />
Live in the sense of wonder, and in the world of joy. Take it, feel it and pass it on.<br /><br />
That's sometimes all you can do -- for someone, somewhere, one day. It's everything. ...<br /><br />
I now add that, when you engage in this process, you yourself live ecstatically -- <i>today.</i><br /><br />
And that <i>is</i> everything.</blockquote>In the last few years, and especially in the last several months, I've forgotten my own advice. I've been dangerously out of touch with my own sense of wonder. It's not difficult to understand why it happened, given the dreadful events in my life in recent times. Still, I consider it a grievous error. Fortunately, it's an error I can now correct. I hereby reclaim my sense of wonder and my dedication to living ecstatically. I reclaim them to the depths of my soul.<br /><br />
If that strikes you as hokey and sentimental, I urge you to reconsider the matter. Cynicism and bleak despair hardly exhaust the range of "adult" emotional responses. In today's world, cynicism and bleak despair are <i>easy.</i> Wonder and ecstasy require courage and strength. Wonder and ecstasy are <i>brave.</i><br /><br />
You may consider that to be boastful and self-congratulatory. You bet your sweet, wondrous ass.<br /><br />
Related: <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2019/01/practical-matters.html">Practical Matters</a>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-34136502692804095032018-12-02T14:35:00.000-08:002018-12-02T14:35:25.546-08:00In Hope of a New BeginningThis has been a wrenching and devastatingly difficult time for me. Unfortunately, it continues to be so; I don't expect it to change significantly for at least another month or two.<br /><br />
I titled the last post "<a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2018/11/alone.html">Alone</a>" because, with Sasha's death, I am all alone for the first time in exactly fifty years, since 1968. During that half-century, a few people have shared my life and living quarters -- but the one constant was that I always had at least one feline companion. For much of the last 25 years, I've had as many as three. But now, I am completely alone. It's an alien experience for me. I hate it. No, that's not strong enough: I absolutely <i>loathe</i> it. Without another living presence here, I barely feel half-alive myself. I'm also too ill and too poor to provide a home for another cat, at least to do so in a responsible manner. <br /><br />
Yet, I do desperately want another cat. For that to happen, I need to resuscitate myself. I also have to strengthen myself as much as possible because I have to move by the beginning of June of next year. The first step in my own revival will be to begin writing regularly again. If I'm able to do that, a few other miracles might be possible. I have many topics in mind; I know I'm alive primarily because a number of subjects and areas of inquiry continue to fascinate me.<br /><br />
I will have a new post up on or before Friday of this coming week. If I'm able to work faster, I will. Because of the damned calendar, I must pay the rent by Wednesday, along with the internet and phone bills, and a couple of other expenses. At the moment, I'm about $600.00 short of what I need. So, as always, I will be very deeply grateful for any help readers may be able to provide. I must add that I extend my profound thanks to all those who have made donations in the last few months. If not for you, I would have vanished by now. I'm sorry I haven't sent any thank you notes recently, but until the last couple of days, it's taken all my strength just to get out of bed. I'll be writing some thank you notes, too, in the coming week.<br /><br />
So, a month in advance of the New Year, I will start a new beginning of my own. I don't know if my new writing will be at all elegant or polished. But at least it will be <i>new writing.</i> And I think, based on my track record, that it will contain some original observations. I've been pretty consistent on that front. Speaking of which: has anyone else noticed that more and more people have begun writing and discussing the phenomenon of tribalism? I became aware of it more than a year ago. I wonder if my writing had anything to do with it. Some of my major pieces on tribalism were published -- wait for it -- almost <i>ten years ago.</i> Here's one important essay: "<a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/02/ravages-of-tribalism-iii-learning-to.html">The Ravages of Tribalism: Learning to Hate 'The Other</a>.'" (If you follow the links in that article, you'll find additional pieces on the subject.)<br /><br />
As you might expect, I have many additional thoughts about tribalism, gathered in the time that has passed. I also want to say a few things about what some others are saying about tribalism. It won't be in the nature of a spoiler to tell you that I often don't agree with the discussions I've come across. So tribalism gets added to my writing To Do list. That subject alone could keep me busy for another ten years.<br /><br />
But there are a lot of other issues and events to talk about. So I'll get busy on that, and I'll be back in the next four or five days (and maybe sooner). And if you have some spare change clanking around, it would be wonderful if you could throw it in this direction. I hardly expect to have a joyous holiday season, but it also doesn't have to be horrific beyond describing.<br /><br />
A multitude of thanks for being there, for listening, and for your consideration.
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-32774720082676802442018-11-08T11:10:00.000-08:002018-11-08T11:10:54.321-08:00AloneSasha died last Friday. Her ashes were delivered to me just a short while ago.<br /><br />
I had known she was dying for the last several months. I didn't mention it here because I couldn't bear to think about it, although I was all too well aware of it every time I looked at her, every time I held her in my lap and stroked her and gently scratched under her chin, while she purred very loudly, every time Sasha and I curled up in bed together. But to put the fact that she was dying in writing here ... well, that would somehow make it more real than I could tolerate.<br /><br />
She died peacefully, here at home. Sasha was a wonderfully sweet, completely adorable little girl. My apartment, my life seem desolate without her.<br /><br />
Now I must somehow regroup, gather what strength I can, and go on. I have to find a new home and move in the next six months. And there is writing to do. Oh, yes, I've seen some stories recently that have reawakened my writing impulses. And I may write a bit about grief and dealing with it. God knows I've had more than enough experience with loss and grieving in my lifetime. Here's one post on that subject from six years ago: "<a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2012/11/never-enough.html">Never Enough</a>." That essay concerns living through, and miraculously surviving, the AIDS crisis in the gay community. I got it right in that post. I know that because rereading it for the first time in at least five years made me cry, again.<br /><br />
So now I cry for all those lives lost to a ghastly disease -- and all the deaths that might have been avoided if we as a culture had been more compassionate and caring, and if we had chosen differently -- for Sasha, and for all the cats that have graced my life with their treasurable love and companionship -- for all the beloved friends I've lost to other causes -- for any of you who suffer for reasons that might have been mitigated or even avoided altogether, or for any of a multitude of other reasons.<br /><br />
Please forgive me for the following. I must be crass for a moment. At present, I'm worse than completely broke. I had managed to get an increase in the credit line on the credit card I use for most of my purchases (groceries, certain bills, etc.). That's mainly what I've lived on for the past couple of months; it's also how I paid for all the expenses in connection with Sasha (which were considerable, and none of which I regret in the slightest -- if I had thought it would save her, I would have robbed a bank).<br /><br />
That increased credit line is gone now. So I'm without funds for any of my living expenses for the month -- internet, phone, electricity, groceries. I would obviously be profoundly grateful for any help you may be able to provide.<br /><br />
I'm going back to bed now. My body was already in terrible shape, and the loss of Sasha is wrecking me at the moment. I'll be back as soon as I can; hopefully, some writing will help to refocus me and provide me renewed strength to go on.<br /><br />
My deep thanks to all of you.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-80971351193163943542018-09-03T18:10:00.001-07:002018-09-03T18:10:45.295-07:00Just Out of Reach ...Many, many thanks to the seven additional people who made donations in response to <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2018/09/cant-sleep-cant-eat-and-generally.html">yesterday's post</a>. I'm deeply grateful to all those who help to keep me going. As I've often said, without these blessed donors, I'd have been out of business, and out of, well, everything, long before now.<br /><br />
I'm still $240 short of what is needed for the rent. It's very important (for reasons explained in the previous post) that I pay the rent by Wednesday, if at all possible. After that, I may have to enter into difficult negotiations with the owners. I truly don't want to have to do that. So if you have a little extra money available and would like to help obtain a badly needed reprieve for a writer who would still like to do some writing, I would be thrilled, relieved, and thankful.<br /><br />
I thought I'd better publish this on Monday evening, rather than waiting until Tuesday, because the anxiety and lack of sleep from which I've been suffering hit me very hard today. I've barely been able to get out of bed at all. And I'm not sure when I'll be able to drag my ass out of bed tomorrow morning. So while I'm up, I thought I should take care of this since, as the saying goes, time is of the essence.<br /><br />
I'm hoping that things have been a bit slow on all fronts because of the holiday weekend. Perhaps some more readers will drop by on Tuesday as the world returns to its regular schedule. That's my hope, at least. And then I might be able to pay the rent and the internet bill ... (And heck, even though it's been years since I've been out to have a meal at a restaurant, isn't $240 about what people -- some people, anyway -- routinely spend these days for a nice dinner? Hell, these days, that might be what people spend for a nice <i>lunch.</i> And it would save me from eviction.)<br /><br />
All my thanks once again, for all your kindnesses and generosity.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-39761807068850566392018-09-02T10:15:00.000-07:002018-09-02T10:15:36.716-07:00Can't Sleep, Can't Eat, and Generally Falling ApartMy deep thanks to the six people who made donations in response to my <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2018/08/let-fall-begin.html">last post</a>. Those six donations total $450. That's a little less than half of the rent payment -- and then there are a few other critical bills, such as internet service and the phone. Oh, and food.<br /><br />
Although I'm not that concerned any longer about money for food. I don't know why I seem to be eating next to nothing, even though I still have a little food left in the house. Well, that's probably the explanation right there: I don't want to eat the last of the food, because that would be it -- the last of the food. Don't want to face that. So I don't eat. Yesterday, I ate a bunch of crackers. Was fine, didn't want to eat anything more. Don't feel much like eating anything now.<br /><br />
But I do have to pay the rent. As I've explained before, now that the owners have started the countdown to evicting all the tenants in preparation for building demolition, I know they would be only too delighted to evict me for cause so as to avoid having to pay me the $20,000 that the local regs require them to pay. Rather than paying me the $20,000 directly, the owners opted to set up an escrow account. That means they only have to dole out the money as I actually incur the moving expenses -- and they don't have to pay whatever is left over until I've moved out completely. Nice for them, rotten for me. In any case, if they can evict me for cause, all that goes away; they don't have to pay me a cent.<br /><br />
The rent is due by the end of Wednesday. After that, it's late. I should be okay if I can pay it by Friday. After that, bye-bye, me. So massive anxiety is wearing me down. I toss and turn all night. It's impossible for me to get any restful sleep at this point. I suppose that might be a blessing: massive anxiety for someone with a bad, weakening heart -- that might be the exit plan I need.<br /><br />
Sometimes, I think about all the writing I've done -- and the quality of the best of that writing -- and I wonder how it's come to this. Actually, I don't wonder all that much; I know how it happened. I could have courted acclaim and popularity; I certainly had the opportunity when I was regularly linked by a number of major bloggers. But I chose to tell the truth as I saw it, which proved not to be all that popular. (Those dynamics became especially stark during the Obama Ascendance, when I regularly wrote essays like <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/05/choosing-sides-ii-killing-truth-and.html">this one</a>.) I wouldn't even mind that all that much (although I could do without the looming possibility of eviction and slow starvation). What truly sticks in the craw is that so many utterly worthless, idiotic, repulsive jerks are so staggeringly successful. That just seems <i>mean</i>. It's hardly an original observation to note that, if God existed, He would be one nasty, sadistic motherfucker.<br /><br />
Well, thoughts for another time, perhaps. The task for this week is to pay the damn rent and a few other bills. Any assistance you might care to offer would be accepted most gratefully.<br /><br />
If you're interested, the listing of Major Essays on the right side of the blog contains some items you might find worthwhile. In fact, two posts I've made notes for concern older posts of mine and how they connect with stories currently in the news. I admit that I am pleased when a piece I wrote ten years ago proves to have been very accurate in its observations and predictions. A nice feeling. If I can manage to pull myself together a bit, I'll try to get those posts done and published. Or some other ones, maybe a light post or two. God knows we could use a good laugh around here.<br /><br />
Okay, enough blithering. I guess I'll knock myself unconscious and get some sleep.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-18446299199276852802018-08-30T11:16:00.001-07:002018-08-30T11:16:40.373-07:00Let the Fall BeginThe fall as in the season, not the Fall of Humankind or something hifalutin' like that -- although, given the overall performance of humans, definitely including the current idiocies being committed on an hourly basis, if not more frequently, it can hardly be argued that the Fall of Humankind would be undeserved or even, from the perspective of other sentient beings out there or perhaps simply the universe in general, unwelcome.<br /><br />
It's not only that we make such a colossal mess of things -- but it should be noted that we do <i>that</i> on an ungraspably huge scale -- but that we are the source of so much completely unnecessary and entirely avoidable pain. And we inflict that pain on everything with which we come in contact.<br /><br />
My, my. You might gather that I am not in the best frame of mind. I do believe what I just stated; if I had more strength at the moment, I would still try to tie such bleak observations to a few strands of hope. Can't do it at the moment. Just can't do it. I deeply regret that I've been too sick to write any new articles during the past month. But the July heat had terrible effects on me -- and on Sasha, as well. We're both still recovering from it. The forecast is that it will get warmer again next week, but I will hope that the heat will not be too excessive. After that, cooler weather may soon arrive. Although I scribble a bit every day, I've been unable to summon the extended concentration required for the kind of writing I prefer. I pray that returns very, very soon. I will keep trying to hasten its return as best I'm able.<br /><br />
Now the first of another month is almost upon us. Thanks to the generosity of 24 donors (and the unusual generosity of a few of that number), I was just able to pay the August rent and the other required bills, as well as have a bit left over for food. I am profoundly grateful to all those who made donations. At the moment, though, I only have about $100 left. So I need to raise funds for the rent, the internet, and food (and a visit to the vet for Sasha, if the universe is in an especially charitable phase). After this weekend, I will have no food, and no money for food. The $100 will be kept for emergencies. Given my health and Sasha's, at least one emergency is all too likely to occur.<br /><br />
As always, I am deeply thankful to all those who make donations in any amount. The only reason I am still here at all is the miraculous kindness of readers who continue to drop by. So a truly heartfelt, "Thank you."<br /><br />
Many thanks for your time and consideration.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-20528005389111833912018-08-02T13:00:00.000-07:002018-08-02T13:02:14.285-07:00Help, PleaseMy deep thanks to the ten people who responded to <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2018/07/just-trying-to-survive.html">my last post</a>. I'm more grateful than I can express.<br /><br />
Unfortunately, I'm still unable to pay the August rent, since I'm about $700 short of what is needed. Included in the $700 figure is money for internet and phone service, both of which are critical. I'm not including money for food, which would be nice, but, well, you can't have everything.<br /><br />
If I can't pay the rent by Monday, I will be in very serious shit. I'm sure the owners will begin eviction proceedings promptly. And if I have to deal with eviction in the next month or two, in the midst of this ghastly heat, that will be the end of me. I'm not being dramatic. I have no idea at all how I would survive it. Chances are, I wouldn't.<br /><br />
I'm trying to put together a couple of posts, and I hope to publish one or two over the next several days. Looking ahead to the very near future, I see that they're predicting temperatures in the mid-90s through <i>all</i> of next week. Please keep good thoughts for Sasha and me for the indefinite time ahead. (Hah, "indefinite," indeed.)<br /><br />
I will be profoundly grateful for any help you may be able to provide. I know this is tedious and tiresome -- but, if it causes you to feel a bit more forgiving with regard to my circumstances, be assured that however bad you imagine my situation to be, I can guarantee you it is far worse. I confess that I sometimes wonder (make that, <i>often</i> wonder) if I even <i>want</i> it to continue. But, for the moment, I refuse to give up. Despite everything, my very strong sense that I still have work to do remains close to indestructible, in large part because I see no one else discussing certain issues that I view as absolutely critical. Granted, that may be, in part, a self-protective mechanism. But I also think it's true. My work is not done.<br /><br />
Thank you for your attention and consideration. Sasha and I remain forever thankful for your kindness and generosity, even in this goddamned hellhole called Los Angeles.
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-61602091913591116322018-07-30T11:02:00.000-07:002018-07-30T11:04:03.573-07:00Just Trying to SurviveI had genuinely thought that this past month would see some regular or at least semi-regular posting from me. I was enjoying writing again, and I looked forward to covering some topics I've wanted to discuss for quite a while.<br /><br />
And then the record-breaking heat wave began three and a half weeks ago. The first three days the temperatures were 108, 103 and 97. Then it leveled off in the mid-90s for several days. I don't know what the temperature was in my second floor, non-airconditioned apartment, but I do know it was unbearable. On three occasions during that dreadful week, I was within minutes of dialing 911. But my last experience with medical personnel was so terrible that I resist calling 911 unless I am close to completely convinced that I'll die if I don't. I was almost there, but then the worst of my symptoms would let up just a little, enough so that I would postpone calling 911 to another day.<br /><br />
I also didn't want to leave Sasha. I have a couple of neighbors who can look in on her and feed her if I'm in the hospital. But I wanted to stay with her, because I've never seen a cat suffer so in the heat before. She was panting like a dog some of the time and seemed very distressed. I did my best to cool her down, and somehow she managed to get through the worst of it too.<br /><br />
Even though the worst of the heat is over for the moment, it hasn't really cooled off here. The temperatures still hit highs between 87 or 88 and the low to mid-90s every day. It appears things will continue this way for another week or so. Yesterday, they predicted a high of 87; in the event, it was 94 at 2 PM. I add about five degrees to the predictions to protect myself from unjustified hope that I might one day feel cool again.<br /><br />
Sasha seems to have returned to her former self for the most part. But I'm a wretched mess at this point. I'm feeling slightly better than I did a week ago, but it's excruciatingly slow going. And even though I make brief notations about stories I want to discuss, I'm not capable of focusing for more than a few minutes at a time on subjects that are at all complicated (which is just about everything I want to write about). So I can't make any representations about when a new post will appear. I try my best every day, and that's all I can do.<br /><br />
It dawned on me over the weekend that the end of the month is almost here. Because I would like to survive this awful period, and because I would like to do some more writing as soon as I can, I have to ask for donations once again. I hate it; you hate it; I guess we can agree that we all hate it. But I have no other source of income. I'm close to completely broke right now, with nothing for rent, the internet, and so on. And screw the 911 call for me: I'd very much like to get Sasha to the vet, but with no money, that's impossible.<br /><br />
So if that $10 is burning a hole in your pocket, Sasha and I would happily put it to good use. Any and all donations will be most gratefully received, as always. And tomorrow morning, and the next morning and the morning after that, I will continue to try to do some writing. One of these days, my brain will start to clear up and stop feeling like a soggy mass of glop.<br /><br />
Many, many thanks for your great kindness. Blessings -- and coolness -- upon you, and all of us.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-45042762832495429982018-07-02T19:56:00.000-07:002018-07-02T21:42:55.758-07:00Getting Closer ...I had to spend a good part of today on the eviction-relocation business, including speaking about several matters with a company that does relocation work on behalf of the city, and then sharing information with a few of the other tenants. So my focus has been a bit shattered.<br /><br />
As a result, I continue to work on the next part of <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2018/06/its-still-not-about-sex-ii.html">my examination</a> of the Watkins-Wolfe story, but I fully intend to publish the third installment tomorrow, probably in the afternoon. I'm still not sure if three parts will do it. But if I do have further observations beyond part three, I may do posts about a few other subjects before returning to the story of <i>the affair!</i><br /><br />
In response to <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-year-of-anxiety.html">the update</a> about my personal situation, I have received a few additional donations. Thank you, thank you! However, I'm still $300-400 short of what I need for this group of bills (rent, internet, electricity, phone). And if I were to receive a bit more than that, I'd be able to stock up on some food. I'm told it's good to have food around. It's been quite a while since I've been able to buy groceries without counting pennies, but I have a vague recollection that food and eating regularly are good things.<br /><br />
But maybe this is the end of the road for me. Who knows. If it is, I have to say it's a shitty deal. There are lots of rotten people in the world. I'm happy and proud to say I'm not one of them. But hell, it's not as if the universe arranges itself so that people get what they deserve, and what they deserve according to our particular perspectives. (Regular readers may recall that extreme heat has a horrible effect on me, particularly in light of my health problems -- atrial fibrillation, heart disease, and so on. Just to keep me in line, the malevolent gods have arranged for temperatures to rise to 100 <i>and above</i> later this week. Imagine my inexpressible joy.)<br /><br />
As always, I'm enormously thankful for any help you may be able to offer. Thank you!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-56564278460771514532018-07-01T11:44:00.000-07:002018-07-01T11:54:54.755-07:00The Year of Anxiety<i>The Age of Anxiety</i> is not only <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Anxiety">an Auden poem</a> (and a symphony by Bernstein, and two ballets, as well). It also appears that the phrase describes what may be my overall state of being for the next year.<br /><br />
Several days ago, I explained that the owners of my apartment building have begun <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2018/06/poverty-eviction-and-other-unwelcome.html">the countdown to demolition</a>. Fortunately, we have until the end of May of next year to vacate the premises. Even though that's a substantial period of time for relocation, I'm considerably overwhelmed by everything that must be done, especially given my age and physical limitations (which are severe at this point). And in the meantime, I still must pay rent each month.<br /><br />
In response to that earlier post, I've received nine donations, totaling $405.00. My deep thanks to those angels of mercy. That will cover internet service and bills for electricity and telephone (all of which must also be paid within the next week, and which are obviously critical), leaving about $160 for rent. That means I'm $800 short of what is needed. I'm not including money for food. I have no money for food. What I have on hand will last four or five days, and that's it.<br /><br />
If you're able to help at all, it would be deeply, sincerely appreciated. As I've already mentioned, the building owners are required to pay me a relocation fee, since this is a forced, no-fault eviction. But if I were to be late with the rent during this interim period -- well, then they can evict me for non-payment, and not have to pay me a single cent. It would be a gift to them, so this is an awful time to be unable to make the rent payment. I have until the fifth to pay the rent in a timely manner; after that ...<br /><br />
In the meantime, I published the <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2018/06/its-still-not-about-sex-ii.html">the second, lengthy part</a> of my discussion about the Watkins-Wolfe story and related issues the other day. I'm in the midst of the third installment now; I expect to publish it tomorrow, barring unforeseen complications. The third part will probably be the last, although the subject is turning out to be richer than I had thought. It raises a host of issues, some of which only became clearer to me in the last few days. So the writing is going well. And I have a long list of other topics I want to get to. As I also mentioned, I'm finding that getting back to writing is a wonderful and welcome distraction to the nerve-wracking circumstances of my life at the moment. And they are <i>very</i> nerve-wracking.<br /><br />
A little relief would be a blessing. I offer my immense gratitude in advance for any assistance you may be able to offer. Many, many thanks.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-89286292643105153722018-06-29T12:38:00.000-07:002018-07-02T08:28:27.170-07:00It's Still Not About the Sex (II)[The first part of this article about the Ali Watkins-James Wolfe story, and related matters concerning the ruling class and the media, will be <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2018/06/its-still-not-about-sex.html">found here</a>. And an important personal note <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-year-of-anxiety.html">is here</a>.]<br /><br />
An unexpected visitor has arrived to join our consideration of the Watkins-Wolfe story, the machinations of the ruling class, and our culture's special obsessions (with sex, most notably). Jill Abramson, who was executive editor of <i>The New York Times</i> for almost three years until she was fired amid much widely publicized drama, was <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/jill-abramson-ex-new-york-times-editor-the-narcissistic-nyt-is-making-horrible-mistakes-needs-a-course-correction">particularly annoyed</a> by certain aspects of the <i>Times'</i> current performance:<blockquote>“Kind of pisses me off that @ nytimes is still asking Who Is Ocasio-Cortez? when it should have covered her campaign,” Jill Abramson erupted on Twitter on Wednesday morning—a biting reference to the newspaper’s original headline concerning the 28-year-old socialist’s shocking Democratic primary upset, a landslide actually, over incumbent Joe Crowley in New York’s 14th Congressional District.</blockquote>The <i>Times</i> spokeswoman offered the obligatory, “We have enormous respect for Jill and deeply appreciate her passion," criticism is our <i>friend,</i> blahblahblah -- and then: "A few hours after Abramson’s tweet, the headline phrase that pissed her off, 'Who is Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez?' was changed online to 'Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: A 28-Year-Old Democratic Giant Slayer.'" Thank God everyone at the <i>Times</i> is so <i>smart.</i> I hate to think about the kinds of mistakes they might make if they were average dolts like the rest of us.<br /><br />
In a subsequent email exchange with the <i>Daily Beast</i> reporter, Abramson stated that she felt the <i>Times</i> needed "a course correction." She went on to say that the <i>Times</i> is "making horrible mistakes left and right. Here are a few":<blockquote>“Not covering the ‘stunning’ upset of Joe Crowley. It’s the NYT that was undeservedly stunned, letting down its readers.<br /><br />
“That horrible 3,000-word exposé on Ali Watkins [the Times reporter who’s caught up in a leak investigation involving her ex-boyfriend, a former top staffer on the Senate Intelligence Committee] <b>that aired her sex life and conflicts while not probing why she was hired, responsibility of editors, or, most crucially, the value of her journalism (her Carter Page scoop in BuzzFeed actually helped lead to appt of Mueller).</b><br /><br />
“That story hung a 26-year-old young woman out to dry. It was unimaginable to me what the pain must be like for her.<br /><br />
“Readers, meanwhile, the most important NYT constituency, were left in a state of confusion."</blockquote>And in a telephone interview, Abramson had still more to say:<blockquote>The Ali Watkins profile, she said, "read like a steamy romance novel in parts," adding that it amounted to "a front-page piece about 'my love affair with someone.' It’s just crucifying. How do you then show up for work? I don’t see a good resolution for that."<br /><br />
Abramson, a frequent and vociferous critic of Barack Obama’s administration for its aggressive attempts to uncover reporters’ confidential sources, also faulted the story for placing more focus on Watkins’ personal life—and her admittedly questionable decision to withhold information about the government’s actions against her from her employer—than on the Trump Justice Department’s war on leaks.</blockquote>Let's set aside questions about Abramson's possible motives for these criticisms and whether and to what extent we view her as a credible critic. She herself acknowledged to the <i>Daily Beast</i> reporter: "I fear sounding like a jealous old-timer. I’ve resisted critiquing the place publicly, but this shit is bad." Rather, let's focus on whether her criticisms are valid. I think they are; a review of the first part of this article shows that Abramson and I make some of the same points.<br /><br />
Abramson's argument that the <i>Times</i> story spends far too much time, and offers far too much detail, about Watkins' "sex life" and that the article "read like a steamy romance novel in parts" is unquestionably accurate. What is truly remarkable is that even after all the time and attention spent on the #MeToo movement -- and the <i>Times</i> itself contributed an enormous amount of coverage to that story, including a current lengthy article, "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/28/arts/metoo-movement-stories.html">How Saying #MeToo Changed Their Lives</a>" -- the <i>Times</i> has no compunctions at all about providing great prominence to a sleazy story of this kind, with an Evil Woman tempting men with her Evil Sex at its center. This is not to say that I'm as sympathetic to Watkins as Abrams; I'm not. I'll come back to that later.<br /><br />
Note how the <i>Times</i> opens this lengthy story:<blockquote>The pearl bracelet arrived in May 2014, in the spring of Ali Watkins’s senior year in college, a graduation gift from a man many years her senior. It was the sort of bauble that might imply something more deeply felt than friendship — but then again, might not.<br /><br />
Ms. Watkins, then a 22-year-old intern in the Washington bureau of McClatchy Newspapers, was not entirely surprised. She had met James Wolfe, a 50-something senior aide to the Senate Intelligence Committee, while hunting for scoops on Capitol Hill. <b>He had become a helpful source,</b> but there were times when he seemed interested in other pursuits — like when he presented her with a Valentine’s Day card.</blockquote>It's not my focus at the moment, but keep in mind the phrase I highlighted: "He had become a helpful source." That's an important point to remember.<br /><br />
This story involves, among other issues, the Trump administration's war on leaks and, very significantly, the complex relationships between reporters and sources (or possible sources), including sources in positions with access to vast amounts of top secret information, as was true in Wolfe's case. But we're first invited to consider the significance of a pearl bracelet given to a young woman -- who's still in college! -- by a man -- who is "many years her senior"!<br /><br />
This slant on the material -- what Abramson justly refers to as sounding like "a steamy romance novel in parts" -- will be found throughout the <i>Times</i> article. For example:<blockquote>Mr. Wolfe had a sensitive job: head of security at the Senate Intelligence Committee, where he oversaw the handling and distribution of highly classified materials delivered by agencies like the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. <b>It was a high-ranking role that Mr. Wolfe had occupied since before Ms. Watkins was born.</b></blockquote>You can hear your spinster Aunt Prunella making "Tsk! Tsk!" sounds under her breath, as she mutters: "Why, he's old enough to be <i>her father!"</i><br /><br />
It might be nice to imagine that the story would have been handled in a very different manner had Abramson still held her job at the <i>Times.</i> She would like us to believe that, but we'll never know. And the <i>Times'</i> own reputation is on the line. What is pathetic -- and pathetically obvious -- is the enthusiasm with which a "venerated" institution like the <i>Times</i> will immediately offer up a sacrificial victim to distract attention from its own failings. My own view of the <i>Times'</i> behavior differs from Abramson's in this crucial respect: she sees it as the result of bad editorial judgment, while I see it as a deliberate strategy. I should offer one clarifying comment on that point. I am not saying that the decision to focus on "the affair" was a fully conscious one, although it had to be, at least in part. But such decisions are the result of patterns of behavior that accumulate over years; much of the process becomes automatic. In writing especially, choices and turns of phrase ("since before Ms. Watkins was born," rather than -- radical thought! -- simply stating the year) are thrown up by the subconscious, the result of choices and values made and reaffirmed over a substantial period of time.<br /><br />
The fact that the <i>Times</i> utilized this strategy in the midst of the year of #MeToo continues to astonish me. It reminds me of my argument in "<a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/09/kill-that-woman.html">Kill That Woman!</a>," which included a discussion of Oscar Wilde's superlative retelling of the Salome story. Tragically, the final paragraphs of that essay remain all too relevant:<blockquote>It is inconceivable to Herod -- just as it is inconceivable to most men -- that the fault or the responsibility should be <i>his.</i> The fault and the responsibility must be Salome's. The fault and the responsibility must always be <i>woman's.</i> In any confrontation between a man and a woman in our culture, there is only one party to be punished: <i>the woman.</i> ...<br /><br />
Kill that woman. That is the motive, and that is the goal. To the extent women are successful, to the extent they threaten men's monopoly on power and control, they must be demeaned, diminished, treated with unending cruelty, and mocked. When all else fails, they must be eliminated. <i>Kill that woman.</i><br /><br />
So ends our story for today.</blockquote>Those who are most critical of Watkins believe that she traded sex for scoops, which Watkins denies. Watkins insists that, once she became romantically involved with Wolfe, he was no longer a source for any of her stories. But what we're told by the <i>Times</i> considerably complicates the question. As noted above, in the initial stages of their relationship, before the sexual element was added, Wolfe <i>was</i> a source, indeed, "a <i>helpful</i> source." From the <i>Times</i>:<blockquote>Ms. Watkins told friends that she did not start dating Mr. Wolfe until after she left McClatchy in the fall of 2014, and that <b>when the relationship began, she imposed ground rules: She would tell Mr. Wolfe, “You are not my source,” and occasionally interrupt him if he started discussing his government work.<br /><br />
But sometimes, she admitted, it got complicated: She would make a mental note of tidbits he mentioned offhand, or gossip with him about Capitol Hill, or throw out a fact and gauge his reply.</b><br /><br />
The relationship has prompted concern in many newsrooms that Ms. Watkins’s conduct has made journalists, and particularly women, vulnerable to unfounded accusations of exchanging sex for information. And it has complicated what would otherwise be a straightforward argument for press advocates protesting the seizure of Ms. Watkins’s emails and phone records.</blockquote>"[S]ometimes ... it got complicated." C'mon. <i>C'mon.</i> Can the few of us with mental ages over seven talk seriously about this for just a moment? If you tell me that you're having an affair with someone in a very sensitive job with access to top secret information -- and you are a reporter who writes stories about <i>the very area</i> in which the person with a very sensitive job works -- that person is one of your sources. Period. You can swear up and down that he isn't, and maybe you've successfully deluded yourself that he isn't. But he's one of your sources. I live in <i>this</i> world, and I know how relationships work. So do you. I also know what ambition can lead people to do.<br /><br />
All of this would be true multiple times over if I were your editor. You're involved romantically with him? He's your source. And yet, in the world of real-life editors, my perspective would appear to be unknown. Consider:<blockquote>Relationships between reporters and sources are an art, not a science: In Washington, meals and late nights out with sources are part of a journalist’s job description. But becoming romantically involved is widely viewed as a conflict, opening a journalist to accusations of bias. [Imagine!]<br /><br />
Ms. Watkins initially sought advice from a Huffington Post editor, Amanda Terkel, who warned her that critics can use personal relationships against journalists. <b>Editors there decided they were comfortable with her continuing to cover intelligence because Ms. Watkins said she was not using Mr. Wolfe as a source.</b></blockquote>Also consider:<blockquote>People at BuzzFeed say they had a general sense of her personal life: During a job interview, <b>Ms. Watkins told Miriam Elder, an editor, that she was dating a man who did intelligence work on Capitol Hill. She said he was not a source, but did not volunteer Mr. Wolfe’s name or title, and the discussion went no further.</b> (Ms. Elder declined to comment, but did not dispute the account.)<br /><br />
<b>Ben Smith, BuzzFeed’s editor in chief, said he believed Ms. Watkins when she said that Mr. Wolfe was not a source.</b> Mr. Smith, in an email, did not condone dating a source, but he expressed a less draconian view about reporters who date within the industry they cover. “Reporters and editors aren’t some kind of priesthood,” he wrote, adding that editors “make these genuinely complex calls on a case-by-case basis.”</blockquote>Watkins said Wolfe was not a source -- and the editors believed her.<br /><br />
One further example of editorial malfeasance should be included. In the course of her employment at Politico, editors learned Wolfe's identity:<blockquote>[E]ditors were also surprised to learn that the man Ms. Watkins had been dating was a powerful official on a committee that she covered.<br /><br />
<b>If Politico editors had reservations about Ms. Watkins’s relationship with Mr. Wolfe, they were not reflected in her assignments: over the following six months, she continued to write about the work of the Senate Intelligence Committee, including a closed-door session with Corey Lewandowski and a meeting with John Podesta.</b></blockquote>Confronted by this inspiring display of tenacity and fine-honed judgment, I can only remark that, in an earlier time, with this kind of inextinguishable curiosity, this insatiable quest for the truth, this never-satisfied demand to have all the relevant facts, and all of this coupled with a remarkable degree of intellectual and emotional maturity, huge crowds would still be thronging the New York docks breathlessly awaiting the imminent arrival of the Titanic.<br /><br />
The comments from still another editor should be noted:<blockquote><b>“People all across Washington are in all sorts of various relationships,”</b> Ryan Grim, Ms. Watkins’s former editor at The Huffington Post, said in an interview. “You manage it, you put up walls, but you can’t pretend that you’re not human. Ali is a great reporter and I trust her judgment.”<br /><br />
“What I see is the Trump administration seizing a reporter’s records <b>and tricking the press into writing about her sex life,”</b> added Mr. Grim, who is now the Washington bureau chief of The Intercept. “It’s appalling what the Trump administration is doing and I don’t think you should enable it.”</blockquote>I don't disagree about the seriousness of the seizure of Watkins' phone and email records; I'll comment further on that in the next installment.<br /><br />
As for the notion that the Trump administration is "tricking the press into writing about her sex life," when did <i>anyone ever</i> have to "trick" the press into writing about sex? This is true even of the Newspaper of Record, as the <i>Times</i> has proven beyond all doubt. It is hilarious to watch people who absolutely loathe and detest Trump continue to attribute to him powers and abilities unknown in all of previous history. The man is a marvel! This tactic also relieves people (the press, in this case) of having to take responsibility for their own decisions. And Grim thinks "Ali is a great reporter and I trust her judgment." If she thinks Grim is a thick-headed clod, I trust her judgment, too.<br /><br />
And even though he has no appreciation of the significance of his own utterance, Grim identifies the issue that cries out for attention and examination, but that goes entirely wanting: "People all across Washington are in all sorts of various relationships ... You manage it, you put up walls, but you can’t pretend that you’re not human." In the Watkins-Wolfe story, the focus is on sex for information. But sex is hardly the only commodity offered in exchange for certain benefits. Suppose a reporter unearths a story that is very unflattering to a well-known politician. The reporter knows the politician, who has been a source on several occasions. The reporter goes to the politician with the story, which is not earth-shattering but nonetheless has news value. The politician offers the reporter a bigger story about other people (including some politicians), and asks that the reporter bury the story about him. The reporter agrees. (We'll be kind, and say that the reporter agrees only after <i>hours</i> of tortured soul-searching.)<br /><br />
Or imagine a reporter who writes about economic matters. Many of his sources know about developments that have not yet been announced that will have significant economic impacts. If you knew about even one of those developments in advance, you could make a lot of money. A <i>lot.</i> The sources ask only for favorable treatment in the press. Do you think they might find a reporter or two who would be agreeable to a trade of that kind? The reporters can console themselves with the knowledge that their dealings with other sources are unimpeachable. Hey, life is <i>complicated.</i><br /><br />
You can multiply these examples endlessly. All over Washington, people are making deals and trades all the time. Every once in a while, a "scandal" will be revealed. People, most notably the media, will announce how outrageous it is, and act as if such behavior is extraordinarily rare, just as they have with this story. Those who study and remember history, including recent history, know that trades of all kinds are the lifeblood of government. This is especially true when a government has immense powers and touches every area of life -- our present government, for example. Wouldn't it be fascinating to read a long, long story documenting some of the various kinds of trades and exchanges that are made? The problem, of course, is that the corruption is so all-encompassing that such a story would necessarily expose and damage too many "untouchables," those with sufficient power to ensure that they will never suffer such exposure.<br /><br />
So that is a story you will never see on the front page of <i>The New York Times.</i><br /><br />
(There will be a third installment. Still more to be said! Meanwhile, a post about some personal matters, and some assistance I could dearly use at the moment, can be <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2018/06/poverty-eviction-and-other-unwelcome.html">read here</a>. ADDED Sunday, July 1: I just published an update regarding <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-year-of-anxiety.html">my personal situation</a>. This is not a happy time. I understate.)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-661319891758569602018-06-28T09:21:00.001-07:002018-06-28T09:21:56.774-07:00Poverty, Eviction and Other Unwelcome BeastsI'm in the midst of completing the second part of <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2018/06/its-still-not-about-sex.html">my article about Watkins-Wolfe</a>, the media (including the <i>NYT</i>), the ruling class, and related matters. My writing legs seem to be functional again, for which I am truly grateful. I expect to publish the next installment later today.<br /><br />
Meanwhile, the long-awaited news has finally been delivered: this apartment building, and the one next door, will be demolished next year. We've been given one-year notice, so we have to vacate our apartments by the end of May 2019. I had thought the notice period was considerably shorter, so I'm relieved that we have the additional time to find new homes. Nonetheless, I'm feeling quite overwhelmed when I think about everything that must be done to accomplish a move. Being old and infirm, and capable of very little in the way of physical labor at this point, it's not yet clear to me how all the required tasks will be fulfilled. I guess the periodic anxiety attacks I've had over the past couple of weeks will simply be another part of my life for the next year.<br /><br />
And then there's the usual monthly anxiety attack, as the first rolls around again and I have to pay another set of bills. (By the way, it appears that the owners of this building will be putting the funds they're required to pay tenants in a forced eviction into escrow accounts, rather than distributing individual checks in one lump sum. I suspect this will complicate my life considerably, and may mean I will have to come up with the money for various expenses in the first instance, and then get reimbursed. But I'll be investigating this, among many other issues, over the next few weeks.)<br /><br />
Anyway, the immediate situation is dire. I am close to completely broke -- just a little money left for food (about a hundred bucks), and nothing for rent, internet, and a few other bills. I've sometimes been a bit casual when asking for donations (I hate doing it, and I hate sounding desperate all the time -- and I'm sure it's not very pleasant for you, either), so let me state clearly that this is very serious. If at all possible, I need to raise the rent money, plus a bit more for internet service and a couple of other indispensable items, by early next week. So I thought I'd better get this post up now and not wait any longer. Since the countdown for eviction has begun, this would be the worst time for me to be late with the rent. It would hand the owners the perfect opportunity to get rid of me without having to pay me a cent.<br /><br />
I would be tremendously grateful for any help you may be able to provide. I truly don't know how to express my gratitude for all your kindnesses over the years; as I've noted many times before, if not for your remarkable generosity and support, I would long ago have ceased to be here, or probably anywhere. And I do have a strong sense that I may finally be returning to writing regularly; at the moment, I'm finding writing to be a wonderful, immensely enjoyable distraction from all these "real-life" problems. If that were to happen, it would be a blessing in the midst of what will undoubtedly be a good deal of chaos (hopefully, managed chaos, but chaos nonetheless).<br /><br />
My deepest thanks, as always, for your patience and interest, and for all your great kindness and support, of all kinds. Words fail. (A frightfully embarrassing admission, to be sure, but there it is.) Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-39573781789717519432018-06-27T09:10:00.001-07:002018-06-27T09:18:36.686-07:00It's Still Not About the Sex<blockquote>Back in April 2013, [Ali] Watkins posted a tweet saying: “I wanted to be Zoe Barnes … until episode 4. Sleeping with your source- especially a vindictive congressman?#badlifechoice” [Tweet from Ali Watkins dated April 2, 2013]<br /><br />
Referencing the show [<i>House of Cards</i>], where the protagonist Zoe Barnes embarks on an affair with a powerful congressman and uses their romantic relationship to get stories and in turn, a quick rise to the top.<br /><br />
She later questioned whether the character’s sleeping with sources to obtain story ideas was ethical, asking her followers to weigh in.<br /><br />
<b>“So on a scale of 1 to ethical, how does everyone feel about pulling a @RealZoeBarnes for story ideas? #TOTALLY KIDDING</b> @HouseofCards.” [Tweet from Ali Watkins dated June 20, 2013] -- <a href="https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/i-wanted-to-be-zoe-barnes-until-episode-4-sleeping-with-your-source/news-story/f2ca74528acc5277ef15fca1280f2567">'I wanted to be Zoe Barnes ... until episode 4. Sleeping with your source.'</a>, June 19, 2018</blockquote><blockquote><b>Avoiding conflicts of interest is a basic tenet of journalism,</b> and intimate involvement with a source is considered verboten. -- <i>The New York Times</i>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/24/business/media/james-wolfe-ali-watkins-leaks-reporter.html">How an Affair Between a Reporter and a Security Aide Has Rattled Washington Media</a>, June 24, 2018</blockquote>On the basis of these two brief excerpts, you may think that sex is a major component of the story we will now consider. That's understandable -- but from the perspective I will urge you to consider, it is entirely wrong. <i>If only</i> this were a story about people screwing their brains out in every imaginable way and combination (and in some ways and combinations that many people probably can't imagine), and having a wonderful time, I would rejoice. Our culture would be far healthier and more life-affirming than it is.<br /><br />
But the majority of Americans think that sex -- of almost any kind, perhaps only excepting sex within the "sanctity" of marriage (but even then, please don't go into detail) -- is dirty and disgusting. Simultaneously, most Americans can't get enough of it. They certainly can't get enough of sex itself, and they can't get enough of gossip and talk of any kind, including by our major news outlets, about sex. The ruling class is well aware of the public's obsession with sex, and they are more than happy to indulge it. That is especially true when the ruling class wants to distract the public from genuinely awful behavior and actions that should be of great concern. Give the public a "dirty" sex scandal, with all the salacious detail that the media's "standards" will allow, and the public will ignore everything else.<br /><br />
Who is telling us the Ali Watkins story, spiced with all the titillating nuggets the public so eagerly gobbles up? That's right: the ruling class itself. Note that I include among the ruling class, as we must, the major media. For at least several decades (and if we are to be accurate historically, for much, much longer than that), the major media has made itself the loyal servant of power and privilege. The major media do everything in their power to protect the prerogatives of those in power, including the ruling class's deadly determination to acquire ever greater power and wealth. This is particularly obvious, and especially lethal, when we turn our gaze to those who cover the national government and the ruling class's activities in Washington, D.C.<br /><br />
Note where the <i>Times</i> wants to force our focus. The strategy is announced in the story's headline: <b>How <i>an Affair</i> Between a Reporter and a Security Aide Has Rattled Washington Media.</b> The "affair" is what they want you to think about, and only the affair. Oh, a few members of the public might mention some other points, but almost no one invests a lot of energy in what are considered tangential issues. But I remind you, as I have had occasion to note in the past: <a href="http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2012/11/seriously-america-its-never-sex.html">"It's not the sex. It's <i>never</i> the sex."</a> (I am sufficiently immodest to note that my analysis in that article, written only hours after the story of Petraeus's "forced resignation" first broke, proved to be entirely correct, including my comments in the concluding section about the likely future of one John Brennan.)<br /><br />
I emphasize that everything we are learning about this story is being told to us by the ruling class via its indispensable toady, the major media. From the point of view of the ruling class itself, the sex is of utterly no significance whatsoever (except for the banal point that they, too, regard sex as dirty and filthy, and want as much of it as they can get). But the ruling class knows full well that if they provide the distraction of sex, the public will enthusiastically run in the wrong direction. The ruling class engages in this venerable exercise in deflection because they know <i>it works.</i> They've seen it work many times before.<br /><br />
Therefore, our task is to shine the brightest light possible on the horrors they hope we will ignore.<br /><br />
It is delicious to contemplate the dilemma confronting <i>The New York Times.</i> The <i>Times'</i> hand was forced by <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/07/politics/james-wolfe-arrested/index.html">the arrest earlier this month</a> of James Wolfe, the former security director of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Wolfe was charged with lying to FBI agents about his contacts with several journalists. Wolfe's arrest revealed that one of the reporters, with whom he had numerous contacts over a period of roughly three years and with whom he had the affair, was Ali Watkins -- who had begun working for the <i>Times</i> in December 2017. Oops.<br /><br />
So the <i>Times</i> story from a few days ago is the newspaper's attempt to rigorously, candidly, and fully examine Watkins' career, including her relationship with Wolfe. But Watkins' career includes her current stint at the <i>Times</i> itself. How did Watkins come to work at the <i>Times</i>? How much did the <i>Times</i> know about her relationship with Wolfe? When and how did the <i>Times</i> come to learn what it says it now knows about Watkins and her history? Are we to trust the <i>Times</i> to tell us rigorously, candidly, and fully about its own role? The <i>Times</i> obviously thinks we should. In its story, the <i>Times</i> gravely informs us: <b>"Avoiding conflicts of interest is a basic tenet of journalism."</b> Well, maybe it's not <i>that</i> "basic," maybe it's not even a "tenet" (hey, they're just <i>words</i>), at least not when you're scrambling to save whatever is left of your credibility, along with your own ass. Whether what the <i>Times</i> is doing in its coverage of the Watkins story constitutes "journalism," I leave to the reader's best judgment.<br /><br />
Reading the <i>Times</i> story thus becomes an exercise in detection. We must strip away the layers of deceit and manipulation, along with a huge amount of self-delusion, we must identify the questions that remain unanswered, and the questions that are never asked at all. If we are genuinely alert readers, there are still additional complexities that must be taken into account. The <i>Times</i> informs us as follows:<blockquote>This account is based on interviews with about three dozen friends and colleagues of Ms. Watkins and Mr. Wolfe, many of whom asked for anonymity to speak candidly about sensitive matters. Ms. Watkins declined to speak on the record, but she has shared many details of her experiences with others who spoke with The Times.</blockquote>It is stating the obvious to note that each and every one of these "friends and colleagues" has loyalties, interests and an agenda of her/his own, all of which assume particular importance when the "friends and colleagues" are speaking to the <i>Times</i> for publication in a high profile story. Is the person a genuine friend of Watkins', who therefore wishes to portray her in the best possible light? Or is the "colleague" someone who is bitterly jealous of Watkins' "meteoric" rise through the world of D.C. journalism, and who would therefore like nothing better than the opportunity to damage her reputation and credibility, perhaps irreparably?<br /><br />
Since "many" of the <i>Times'</i> sources were granted the cloak of anonymity, we have no way to make any of these judgments. We must trust the <i>Times</i> to make these, and many other, determinations -- the oh-so-"disinterested," oh-so-"objective" <i>New York Times,</i> which just happens to be Watkins' current employer, and which more generally also just happens to be thoroughly enmeshed in the government-media D.C. cesspool. Hmm. (The <i>Times</i> notes that Watkins "declined to speak on the record." When other news organizations attempted to reach Watkins for comment, they were told that Watkins was away on a "pre-planned vacation," and therefore apparently unavailable. Now, now, don't laugh so uncontrollably. It makes you appear to be unkind, and it's not polite.)<br /><br />
(To be continued. I expect to complete the second part of this article later today or tomorrow. It's likely a third installment will follow. I'm just getting started.)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20668359.post-30777085655907532712018-06-05T11:39:00.001-07:002018-06-05T23:55:09.436-07:00Of Monstrous Injustice, and the BizarreOnce again, I must offer my sincere apologies for being absent from this space. The reason for my absence is, yes, you guessed correctly, disgustingly awful bad health. Having a failing body is exhausting and boring. God, is it <i>boring.</i> There are so many things I want to do -- reading, writing, listening to music -- and I can barely summon the strength and focus to do even a small part of it. So I'm bored out of my mind, left to contemplate how shitty I feel -- which not surprisingly tends to make you feel more shitty.<br /><br />
All right. A couple of small pointers I can provide. First, the <i>NYT</i> published an engrossing two-part report about a man convicted of murdering his wife. (<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/23/magazine/joe-bryan-blood-forensics-murder.html">Part I</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/31/magazine/joe-bryan-part-2-blood-spatter-analysis-faulty-evidence.html">Part II</a>) Exactly how and why he was convicted is fascinating, and absolutely horrifying. The second part of the story, which focuses on the "science" of bloodstain-pattern analysis, reveals the extent to which you can bamboozle people with "expert" witnesses who claim that "science" is on their side. Recall, as just one other example of the same phenomenon, all the "experts" in international relations and foreign policy who regularly and repeatedly offer advice which leads to still more brutality, death and destruction -- all of which inures to the benefit of the ruling class. Odd, how "experts" minted by the ruling class can be relied upon to provide policy prescriptions designed to offer still more power and wealth to the ruling class. Whoever would have expected such a result...<br /><br />
The two-part article is lengthy, but it is unusually well-written. I commend it to your attention. Joe Bryan's story is so compelling that the <i>NYT</i> offered <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/31/opinion/blood-splatter-evidence.html">an editorial</a> strongly supporting Bryan's release from prison (Bryan has been imprisoned for 30 years, he is now 77 and suffering from congestive heart failure -- and he most probably did not commit the crime of which he was convicted). At some point, it's very likely I will tease out some of the implications of the article's arguments.<br /><br />
Second, and this falls into the category of strange and bizarre bits of cultural history I hadn't known about, when I was toodling about Youtube last week, I stumbled upon a film I'd never heard of, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lq15RmpW2jY"><i>Gone to Earth.</i></a> David Selznick was one of the producers, and the 1950 film stars his wife, Jennifer Jones. And the film is a <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042513/">Michael Powell-Emeric Pressburger production!</a> (<i>The Red Shoes!</i> <i>Black Narcissus!</i> <i>'I Know Where I'm Going!'</i>) I wondered how I had never heard of this movie, and sat back to enjoy my discovery.<br /><br />
I was transfixed, not by the glory of what I was seeing -- although the treatment of the English countryside is often very glorious -- but by the transcendently, staggeringly, gut-wrenchingly awful performance of Jennifer Jones. Now, I've seen Jones give very bad performances, but this one is genuinely extraordinary. I can't even begin to describe it, and I really shouldn't until I finish watching the film. I got halfway through it; it was very late, I was tired, and I found it a considerable strain to watch this creation that felt as if it had come from another world.<br /><br />
Selznick didn't much like what Powell and Pressburger had done with this project -- so he went to court. The result was Selznick's re-editing and re-release of the film, with a new title: <i><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045328/?ref_=tt_rec_tt">The Wild Heart</a></i>. The consensus seems to be that Selznick would have been better advised to leave it alone.<br /><br />
I will finish viewing the film sometime this week, and then I'll offer a few more thoughts about it. The story would certainly allow the filmmakers to present a damning indictment of men's cruelty to women, and how men destroy women of unusual qualities. Part of the reason I didn't finish watching it the first time is that it's entirely clear how the film will end -- and it promised to be more depressing than I wanted to deal with. But I shall forge on ... but if you want to see a film that's fascinating simply because it is so bizarre, <i>Gone to Earth</i> may be for you.<br /><br />
So life goes on. I offer all my gratitude to those who made donations in the last couple of months. Your kindness allows me to trudge on -- and I remain convinced that someday, soon, <i>soon</i> I desperately hope, a surge of writing will pour forth from me. I try to gather my strength to hurry that day along.<br /><br />
Because of readers' generosity, I've been able to pay the June rent. But that has cleaned me out -- I now have $60 left. That's it. I have almost no food in the house, and I have nothing with which to pay the internet bill, or the bill for electricity, or a couple of other obligations. Any and all donations will be received with wild, uncontrollable enthusiasm. (Seriously.)<br /><br />
As always, my deep thanks for your attention and your time, and for your kindness, which I receive with a profoundly grateful heart.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com