It's the Ground, Not the Figure

George H. W. ("41") Bush was recently quoted as having complained a few months ago about the popularity of Donald Trump.  Trump had made some idiotic crack about John McCain, somehow criticizing him for having been taken prisoner in VietNam, as if McCain's capture had been evidence of his failure as a soldier.

"I can't understand how somebody could say that [what Trump said] and still be taken seriously," "41" said.

Bush was making the same logical mistake Trump did.  He was thinking about Trump's ascendancy as if it meant something about Trump, as Trump thought about McCain's capture as if it meant something about McCain.

Bush's complaint should have had nothing to do with Trump.  It was not Trump who could have been credited with maintaining legitimacy, despite a profusion of idiotic cracks, of which the one about McCain was only an example.  It was the people, the voters, who should be blamed for sinking so low as to "take seriously" someone like Trump.

And this is not a good place for Bush to go.  If he does, he has to recognize that this was exactly the fault that brought Reagan to the White House, which was what brought Bush himself there, which was what got his son an eight year residence there. which was what he presumably hoped would get his other son the key to the Penn Ave digs.

The plain fact is that Reagan was a charming dolt, an actor who came across well, and could somehow reassure, despite the fact that he had no reality-based plan.  He was like an old grand-dad, who was pleasing to listen to, as long as you didn't stop to realize he had no idea what he was talking about, and all his "memories" were faulty.  Reagan told so many people what they wanted to hear, in just the right way (he was also a wiseass who told war stories about how he personally fought off 10,000 German soldiers in the Somme, killed many, captured the rest, and won six medals of valor, that he could no longer find), that they decided they could trust him to be President.  When the result of his first four years of fiscal management was a large national debt, they looked the other way, and elected him again.  They loved those war stories.  When the result of his second four years was an even larger debt, they did the only thing they could, and elected his Veep.  That would have been fine enough for them, too, except his Veep, "41," made the huge mistake of saying that the economy was unsustainable, or the Emperor had no clothes, or something, and he quickly got himself unelected.

Clinton then delivered a fiscal surplus, which would have been great for conservatives, except that Clinton was a Dem, so he didn't count, and they (re)turned to Reagan's Veep's son, which was the closest they could come to Reagan.  (You have to be very concrete to look at it this way, but very concrete the people are.)  The Bushes are often referred to as a political/Presidential "dynasty," but the dynasty has nothing to do with the Bushes.  It's all just the people's/voters' wish to have Reagan back.

Junior Bush, "43," then wiped out the Clinton surplus and redelivered a fiscal debt, much larger than the ones Reagan and "43's" daddy had produced, all while showing a depth of mindlessness and ineptitude that had hitherto been unimaginable.  The people were again pleased, and they re-elected "43" to do it more, which of course he dutifully did.  And as a bonus, "43" lied this country in to the longest war it has ever experienced, and the people/voters didn't complain about that, either.  Well, eventually they did, but only when they told themselves they could somehow blame the war on someone else.

That's what this is about.  It's about the people.  They are the ones who are foolishly charmed by people like Reagan, and Trump.  They have base instincts, and some figures allow them to act out those instincts.  How can Trump still be taken seriously?  How can the voters, the people, be taken seriously?  They have their heads "where the sun don't shine."  I hope "41" didn't think too much about that.

Hey Buddy! Get That Thing Off the Highway!!

That's what another driver might say.  A police officer might say "you'll have to pull off the road, sir.  License and registration, please."

I have a certain kind of conversation that gets really old, really fast.  It's usually about politics, and it's with certain people.  I have occasionally had this kind of conversation about religion, but I've learned to stay away from it.  It gets just as old, just as fast.  Do you want to know how I know?

The problem is people who are rigid, presbyopic, and intellectually primitive.  The interesting fact is that these people are in no way generally stupid.  It's only that they constrict when it comes to certain topics, like politics.  And these are neither necessarily right-leaning nor left-leaning people.  I've encountered it "on either side of the aisle," so to speak.  The right-leaning ones are the usual caricatures, and they're easy and comical, if unnerving, to spot.  (I have a good job, so you don't need any support, and if you do, tough.  Go find your own good job.  You can't?  Tough.  I'm not a homosexual, so homosexuality doesn't exist.  If you think you've decided to act homosexual, decide not to.  And whether it exists or it doesn't, or you are or you aren't, you don't get to have the same rights as heterosexuals.  Because, um, well just because.)  But I've had exactly the same experience with some lefties.

For all of Obama's first term, no one was allowed to disagree with anything Obama did or said, and certainly not criticize him, in my sister's presence.  If this kind of expression occurred, she would announce that she wouldn't have it.  Most commonly, the settings were gatherings she hosted in her home.  So literally, "not in my house," as they say.

Recently, I've been getting lots of petitions to challenge the almost-no-abortions-after-20-weeks Republican proposals.  Are these liberals crazy?  Republicans, who typically want no abortions ever, even in cases of rape or incest, are willing to ignore any abortions up to 20 weeks, and even some after?  What a gift!  Liberals should kiss conservatives for that massive concession and compromise.  But they're so rigidly focused, they don't know what they've been given.  Sign the petition?  No way.  They get a challenging letter back from me instead.  And they accuse conservatives of being rigid, pseudo-doctrinaire, and obstructionist!

Not that the topic matters, but in recent days, I've had this kind of conversation with conservatives, regarding the Zimmerman case.  All they can see is that Zimmerman was not convicted, that's right with them, and there's no other view, understanding, or angle to take.  Case closed.

The sad thing is that these people are allowed to function in society.  They can vote, and they can even run for office.  And they do.  We tend to see more right wing whack jobs than left wing whack jobs elected to office, but that may be because human nature, and all animal behavior, is conservative, or right wing.  As Tip O'Neil rightly said, "all politics are local."  And as local as one gets is oneself.  From the moment of birth, it's all about "me."  They don't call it "infantile narcissism" for nothing.  If you don't do anything, you'll be born conservative, and you'll die conservative.  If you're to become anything else, you have to outgrow your infantile, narcissistic conservatism.

Which is not to say that all liberals are mature.  Many are, and some are not.  Some of them simply expand the concept of narcissism, and their own personal narcissisms, to include something or someone else.  But it's the same narcissism, just configured differently.  Instead of "it's all me, me, me," it's "it's all me, me, me, and my advocacy of you."  It's like the old joke: "enough about me; lets talk about you.  What do you think about me?"  Orthodox Jews are not allowed to use certain things, including keys, during their sabbath.  Once they step outside their homes, they can't have locked the door, because they couldn't get back in.  So they have devised a manipulation to extend the concept, and territory, of "home" to include lots of places that aren't their personal houses.  They do this by fashioning a system of strings around territory that includes their own personal dwellings, and anything within the strings is considered "home."  So now they can leave their house, lock the door, take the key, and use it to reopen the door without having used it other than "in the home."  That's what liberal narcissists do.

These people, righties and lefties, are like a driver whose transmission is broken, and he can't get out of first gear.  But because he wants to go where he wants to go, and he's in as much of a hurry as he thinks he is, and the interstate is the most direct route, he decides to take the interstate, and drive in the left lane.  In first gear.

These people need to stay off the road.  They're not fit.  They shouldn't be in office.  Or vote for someone who wants to be.  Or even have conversations about politics.  Or much of anything else.  They can't handle it.

Guns Don't Kill People. People Do.

So say the gun rights advocates.  And of course they're right.  More specifically in this instance, people with guns kill people.

How to understand George Zimmerman.  Zimmerman, a concerned neighbor without a gun, sees an unfamiliar black kid with a hooded sweatshirt, calls police, and maybe hangs around, at a distance, to see what will happen, and what this unfamiliar black kid with the hooded sweatshirt will do, when the police arrive.  Or he contents himself that he has made the call, worries for his safety around this unfamiliar black kid with the hooded sweatshirt, and prudently goes home.  He'll call the police later, to find out if everything was OK.

Zimmerman with a gun is an entirely different animal.  He's fearless and cocky.  His gym trainer says Zimmerman is no kind of specimen.  But with a gun, he's a powerhouse.  With a gun, Zimmerman gets out of his car and confronts this kid.  The unfamiliar black kid, with the hooded sweatshirt.  The kid who might himself, for all Zimmerman knows, have a gun.  How is it Zimmerman isn't worried about this possibility?  Is that what carrying a gun does?  It makes you not only aggressive, but stupid?

He approaches the kid, demands to know who he is, what he's doing, where he's going.  He doesn't show his gun, though.  He's just at the kid.  He's pushy, insistent, unrelenting.  It's the kind of cockiness you have when you're carrying a gun.  The fact is, that gun divides Zimmerman into two people.  The unarmed Zimmerman calls the police again, three minutes after the first call, to see if they're on the way yet.  Ask his gym trainer.  Zimmerman with a gun is a vigilante, fierce, an army of one.  He's not at all the softie his gym trainer knows.

"Mind your own business," says the black kid with the hooded sweatshirt.  Maybe "leave me alone, Mister."  Or maybe "fuck you."  For all we know, it could even have been "I'm visiting my aunt."  But Zimmerman, the big shot with the gun, the wiseguy who's prepared to "stand [his] ground," or is maybe even looking for a fight, isn't satisfied.  It's not OK with him that this black kid, with a hooded sweatshirt, is there, on Zimmerman's turf.  It's not OK at all.  He knows all about black kids, especially the ones with the hooded sweatshirts.  "Punks," who "always get away."  And he, and that gun, aren't going to be side-stepped.

What does Trayvon Martin do with this interaction?  He wants to go home, and he's being accosted by some cracker who won't leave him alone.  Does the cracker get in his face?  Is there any contact from this fearless, cocky, (gun-toting) white dude?  Does Trayvon Martin feel threatened in any way?  Does he, by any chance, push back?  Why shouldn't he?  It's not like he has anything to fear. Zimmerman turns out to be easy to overpower.  There's a scuffle, and Martin, who's stronger, and maybe bigger, winds up on top.  He's scared, but he's proud to have defended himself.

As the gun people say, guns don't kill people.  People do.  Any time they want to, if they're carrying a gun.

I Wish I Were Smart Enough to be an Upper Echelon Republican

Sometimes, I get the e-mails that suggest that Republican women are better looking than Democrat women.  The Republican women pictured include Ann Coulter, and the Democrats include Madeline Albright.  It's silly, but cute.  Is it sexist?  Of course.  Is it as primitive as "My dad can beat up your dad?"  Sure it is.  But still, it has a kind of trailer trash charm that's undeniable.

My own ambitions are loftier than that, though.  And it takes more to impress me.  I look at people like Dick Cheney, George Will, Brett Stephens, Marco Rubio (when nothing interrupts him), Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, and maybe the newcomer, Ted Cruz.  Never mind Mitt Romney.  His appeal is much more like Ann Coulter's than Dick Cheney's.  He's a very pretty face, featuring a mouth that can spout platitudes.  But these other guys are smart.  Very smart.  They talk circles around many Democrats.  I don't know if they could outargue Bill Clinton, who's as smooth as silk, but it's possible they could.   They do dazzle with brilliance.  But that's because they have to.

The other end of that joke is baffling with bullshit.  And they have to do that, too.  But to convince people, they have to do it in a compelling way, a way that sounds logical, reality-based, confident, and intelligent.  In trying for a wide appeal, like to the less endowed classes, they have to sell ice to the Eskimos, and coals to Newcastle.  They have to convince poor people to endorse a system that leaves the poor poorer, and in exchange enriches the rich.  At the expense of the poor people who are urged to go along with this.

This task is not easy.  It requires a really smart person.  Any dummy can sell something that is so clearly advantageous that it sells itself.  All the salesman has to do is offer the product or service, and get out of the way.  But it's a real challenge to sell snake oil, and to some people who aren't even ailing.  Sure you have to be glib, but that glibness comes from a certifiable great intelligence.  The best of the sociopaths is like that.  Bernie Madoff talked some really smart people out of a lot money.  I couldn't have done that, even if I had wanted to try.  I'm not smart enough to confuse people that much, sometimes in areas of their own semi-expertise.  Bernie Madoff is a really smart guy.  Just like Cheney, Will, Stephens, Gingrich, and the rest.  They have to be.

Stabbed in the Back by a Blade

In full disclosure, I did not think it was right that Oscar Pistorius, the "blade runner," was allowed to compete in the Olympics.  Two forces combined to permit his inclusion.  One was the Olympic Committee's decision not to exclude him.  Clearly, I have no idea what argument was made to them, but I suspect that whatever it was, part of their accession was based on some sense of political correctness.  It would be wrong to exclude Pistorius just because he was at a disadvantage, and he did what he could to compensate himself for it.  After all, he only wound up with two lower extremities, as everyone else has, and there was no proof that his two lower extremities were any better than anyone else's.  And wasn't he at some sort of disadvantage anyway, because of the unnaturalness of his condition?  I think the Committee was wrong, but I imagine this was part of what influenced them.  On the other hand, since no one knows for sure what prostheses like Pistorius' do, there was also the concern that they created an advantage for him.

The other force was Pistorius himself, and the fact that he had Olympic ambition, and decided he had an argument to make.  He's had quite an athletic life, and has been a multi-sport athlete.  So he's very competitive.  Sadly, as we learn more and more from many arenas, and not at all just sport-related, competition is not always fair.  Some competitors cheat.  Athletes who take performance-enhancing drugs are trying consciously to arrange for themselves an unfair competitive advantage.  And if they don't reveal the fact, or try actively to conceal it, they're dishonest about it.  Did Pistorius himself think he had an unfair competitive advantage, in having his "flex-foot Cheetah" prostheses?  (Not exactly an unassuming name for these appliances.)  Frankly, it's a hell of an act of self-promotion to want to be in the Olympics, and to press actively for it, against standard regulations, securing legal representation, takes a very good deal of competitiveness, even cockiness.  Never mind the question of whether Pistorius was cheating.  The question is, did he think he was cheating.

For the same reasons that moved the Olympic Committee, it may have been hard to see cheating in Pistorius, or to think of him as a cheater.  We only had to look at him, with the orthopedic version of puppy dog eyes, to see what a sympathetic character he was.  He could easily have looked more heroic than sociopathic.

But do we have to reconsider how honest and honorable, how decent and hard-working, are people whose greatest attribute is their fierce competitiveness?  There's almost a reflex tendency to assume the worst about Barry Bonds or Ray Lewis.  Should that skepticism be held back when it comes to Pistorius?  Or is Pistorius, with those glaring and pathetic (or are they intimidating?) appliances, just as bad an actor as those we are more comfortable loving to hate?  His competitiveness isn't in his prostheses.  It's in his head, just like the competitiveness of Rodney Harrison, and James Harrison, and Ron Artest, and pitchers who roughen baseballs, and hockey players who are prone to fighting with their opponents, or sticking them in the face.  If these people were ruthlessly competitive in another direction, they'd be cheating on tests.

So now, Pistorius has murdered his girlfriend.  He shot her to death.  There are also separate incidents of domestic violence perpetrated by Pistorius.  Not exactly the picture of the honest and hard-working competitor some wanted to imagine.  And whatever was behind his decision to murder her, he reportedly tried to excuse himself with some tale of having mistaken her for an intruder.  If this scenario seemed weak at the outset, it got a lot weaker when neighbors reported having heard shouting and arguing before they heard gunshots.

Political correctness can be a good thing.  It can keep citizens honest.  It can also be dangerous, like an opiate.

Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is, or Personal Pork

It's mid-February, in the quarter of the year between New Year's resolutions and Tax Day.  Tax Day being that balancing act where the exposure created by income is mitigated by the protections of our deductible expenses.

No one likes to pay taxes.  Even liberals, who claim to understand why the public sector is important, and appreciate the supports and benefits it provides, don't like to pay taxes.  The guy in the booth next to mine at breakfast this morning was explaining to his companion how he "plays the system" and "flies under the radar."  It seems he's paid by check, with no withholding, and he essentially invents an income and expenses, allowing him to take advantage of all possible tax benefits, and avoid any changes from one year to the next, changes that might trigger the dreaded tax audit.

Most people aren't quite as sociopathic as that, but there is, as they say, a little larceny in everyone.  We all tend to cut a corner here or there, or direct money so as to shelter it if we can.  It's not quite as simple as wanting to avoid taxes, so we can keep the money ourselves.  Some people give money away, to avoid paying taxes on it.  And this is the crux of a problem.

Our system, of society, government, and taxes, is set up so that the government spends money on what we're all supposed to agree is in the common interest, whether it's paying for government itself, constructing a system of highways, providing support for the poor and impaired, declaring war on Iraq, or anything else.  We're all supposed to pay a fair share of taxes to support those aims.  But we're welcome to pursue other interests, which are not necessarily agreed for the common good.  These are our private and personal interests, and can include anything "charitable," as long as it doesn't lobby.  Our taxes are deductible, and so are these other contributions.

If there is anything most people dislike more than they dislike taxes, it is "pork," or pork-barrel legislation.  Absolutely everyone complains about it.  Pork is those narrow interests that are forced upon others, who must support them, despite the fact that the vast majority of supporters gain no advantage at all from the narrow interests.  In fact, sometimes it seems that no one at all gains any advantage from them.  Alaska's "bridge to nowhere" is a recently discussed example.  These cuts of pork do nothing except funnel money into an area that could not independently attract the money, because few Americans would be interested, and the projects do not provide anything representing the general welfare.  Except in the very local area of the project.

Aren't charitable and related contributions precisely like that?  If I'm not a member of your church or synagogue, and I don't favor the ACLU, and I think the national park service provides protection enough, so conservation groups are superfluous and might have narrow agendas that are beyond what is of value to the public, why should I have to pay for part of your interests in these things?

I think I shouldn't.  And I think you shouldn't have to pay for part of my devotions.  So I have made a resolution from now on.  I no longer take tax deductions for donations I make to anyone for anything.  The only exception I make is for donations I make to the public sector.  The municipality where I live has an extremely limited ability to raise revenue.  I make extra "contributions," of one kind or another, and for one excuse or another.  I will deduct those "contributions," because I intend them as extra and voluntary taxes.  I will not deduct contributions to public radio, Feeding America, Amnesty International, Southern Poverty Law Center, or any of the several other organizations to which I choose to give some of my money.  That's on me, not on you.  And if you choose to give some of your money to a religious organization (I'm atheist and anti-religious) or anyone else of interest to you, I would appreciate your making that your own business.  You shouldn't have to eat my pork, and I shouldn't have to eat yours.

"Money Makes the World Go 'Round" (Cabaret)

I sent my right wing cousin an appeal from Public Citizen.  Their angle du jour was Jack Abramoff's disingenuous confession that lobbying was wrong and antidemocratic, and that he was wrong to have devoted himself to it.  See, said Public Citizen, we must keep up the fight against lobbying; even Jack Abramoff admits it's a scourge.  My cousin correctly suggested that Abramoff was laughing all the way to the bank, now banking money he got from "the left" for his mea culpa.  What my cousin forgot to consider is that before Abramoff went to prison, he was banking money he got from the right, for lobbying.  Abramoff didn't care where the money came from.  He's just a simple whore.  Anyone's money is as good as anyone else's, and he'll say anything that results in a paycheck for him.

Last night, my aunt was talking about a debate that occurred in the stock club of which she has been a member for decades.  The debate was about whether to sell off stock in gun manufacturing companies.  She argued against it, pointing out these stocks performed well, and that the club had in the past invested in tobacco company stocks, too.  The club members voted, and elected to divest.  I suggested my aunt think of it like the time when various entities in this country were urged to divest in otherwise profitable activities involving South Africa under the last throes of apartheid.

This morning, I heard on the radio a discussion about yesterday's protests by people who were against tighter gun regulation and restriction.  Many of the protesters were simply gun advocates, but an interesting protest occurred in Connecticut.  Of course Connecticut is where a recent mass murder occurred, but it's also the home of Remington firearms.  Remington workers were some of those protesting.  Although one worker said that in his opinion, AR14 assault guns were unnecessary in society, for any purpose, many workers were concerned about restriction of manufacture and sale of these guns, because such action might cost jobs.

I suppose it isn't easy as society evolves.  Many blacksmiths must have gone out of business when cars came in, and horses went out.  And now car companies have trouble if they don't keep up with demand for whatever drivers want to drive.  Mom and pop stores go out of business when the big box stores come in, and some of those suffer when people buy online.  So I'm thinking my aunt should look at a bigger picture, and so should Remington employees.  A surfeit of guns, and assault-style guns, in common society might be as unsustainable as were horses on the streets of every city, or the family-owned hardware store the loss of which the Public Works guys and I were bemoaning two days ago.