Read in this form at the Tambourine Lounge, Sturgeon Bay, 8/8/19:
Root beer popsicles: I remember them well. I thought about them while in line that day.
I didn't have to be in line at the supermarket, on Milwaukee's East Side. I was offered, and perfectly knew about, an opportunity to whisk my way through, checking out by bar-coded machine.
I said no. Thing is, so did several others.
We stood in a single line while at least five other humanly-operated checkout counters went wanting. They were closed, on purpose. They were closed by stretching cords across shopping carts.
It was about three-thirty on a Wednesday afternoon. At least ten of us waited in the only actual checkout line available. The line stretched for at least twenty yards, well past those closed checkout counters, toward other kinds of displays meant for those who kept shopping.
But you see, those counters needed actual human beings to work them. They'd have to pay those people to do so.
It became quite obvious that the store didn't want that scenario. Automation 101 here. So an attendant--one assigned to assist, if need be, at the non-human checkout counters--began to go down our line and ask us, one by one, if it would be all right for us to checkout automatically, without human contact, or conversation, or anything else but a cold-blooded computer.
The fellow in front of me, fifth in line, had already sounded off. He had turned to me, looked askance, and said, "I'd say something, but I won't." Then proceeded to say what was on his mind and mine: This is a bad look for this store. This is silly. This is, well, inhuman.
And it also meant that eventually, he reminded me, the young lady who was singularly, actually tokenly, checking people out wouldn't be doing so before too long. And those unpeopled counters? No doubt they're due to be gone soon, too--yielding to automatic scanners with automatic voices doing automatic things.
This would be capitalism in its most cold-shouldered form someday, for someone, not anyone we knew or would ever know. We would not be people, but automatons performing tasks caught by sensors. We've stopped seeing the farmers who produced the produce long ago, unless we could stop by and look upon their wares at invented markets on Saturday mornings.
We didn't have that. We had a lady, doing her job, going down the now very extended row of awaiting, finished, now growing annoyed shoppers and asking whether, in fact, they would like to participate in the faster, non-human checkout process.
One by one, we said no. The fellow behind me had an excuse; he was waiting for a partner to return with more items. I just flat said no, thank you.
It felt liberating. Here, in the middle of a spring afternoon, was a wildcat protest against corporate, efficient, officious recidivism, against taking our money without any human contact in return. I could barely hold back a smile.
But then I thought, too, about growing up in a small town not far away, where, on a hot summer's afternoon, I could grab my bike and pedal about twenty minutes to Schmit's Grocery, on what was then a fairly busy corner, which meant that sometimes as many as four cars would be backed up at the four-way stop. If I had a nickel, I could buy myself a root beer popsicle.
There were plenty of popsicle flavors--I liked orange and cherry, too--but root beer was the one I desperately needed. I would sit on the front steps, separated by a brick column that defined the corner of the building, splitting the steps into two parts, and savor that sucker. Snapping the halves with their wooden sticks holding them together, I would nibble at the broken edges first, then be sure to catch the drippings as the hot weather worked on them. Sometimes, syrup would stick to the inside of the wrapper and I could lick that off, too.
I don't remember waiting very long to buy it, though. Neither the fellow or lady at the only checkout counter, nor I, had ever heard of a computer--what was that?--being in charge of collecting my money. I don't recall any of them ever grinning as I held out my nickel, but I bet they did. I would hear the register ring as I walked out. Today in a line like this, that darn thing would be melting down my arm by the time I could actually open it.
I thought about that as the fellow in front of me told the young lady at the checkout counter that he was there to make sure she had a job tomorrow. "Thank you," she said, looking at him briefly.
You're welcome. Just as it was my turn, the management buckled and opened up another human-based checkout line. I looked behind me. There were at least seven other grocery-laden carts there now. All but one of them were operated by people with graying hair. I felt like raising my fist in victory.
There are still some family-owned, small groceries around, but you have to look hard to find them. Slowly, they--and we--are being feasted upon by bigness, by efficiency, by the shrug-shoulderedness of consumerism. As they loom larger, we are reduced, one experience at a time, one checkout at a time. You can package items, but you can't package attitudes to be processed by bar codes. Or feelings. A surprising number of us, standing in line, said exactly that, resisting if for a fleeting moment the back-handedness of making money and making us into objects for that sole purpose. We may eventually lose the war, but it never feels bad to win a battle.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Thursday, March 28, 2019
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
Meet the Prophet from Orange County
Among the more troubling aspects of our political culture is the insistence and reliance upon some people in significant positions of power to call upon the almighty for justification. This is contingent, of course, upon something successful happening; if things go well, the good Lord has blessed us. If not, some evil people, cursed with awfulness of sin, are doing bad deeds.
So it was that Mike Pompeo, the blessed Secretary of State, pronounced to Benjamin Netanjahu the other day that "The Lord was at work" in how Israel has been protected through the years.
Meet the prophet from Orange County. How does he come off in making such a pronouncement, especially in front of the leader of a nation based on the ascendance of a people who do not believe in the divinity of that same Lord?
But that's the thinking of the fuzzy-headed, excessively religiously afflicted members of this administration: Israel is the place for god's chosen people, thus America, which has also been blessed by god, stands as Israel's protector and caretaker in perpetuity.
Something like that. If I've missed a detail or two, so be it, but to these people, such details are superfluous, especially when supernatural forces are involved. It's called theocracy, espoused by those who do not accept anything not eventually connected to eternity, and are very willing to intimidate and bully those who do not submit to such thinking, if not treat them with condescending backhandedness. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, 45's horrible excuse for a press secretary, is such a person. If you can stand it for more than two minutes, listen to her lies and deflections through that lens.
Actually, there are far more nefarious forces at work, speaking of the awfulness of sins. Saudi Arabia protects Israel every bit as much as we do. The Saudis are sworn opponents of Iran, since the Saudis are Sunn-i Muslims and Iranians are Shi-ites. The difference between the two are about like the synods of the Lutheran church in America, but far more passionately drawn and viciously defended.
The Saudis govern about that viciously, too. They regularly torture and murder people who don't seem to adhere to the regime's absolute rule in the way that it prefers--thus the Khashoggi murder and the 45 administration's success in letting it slide without calling out, or sanctioning in any way, the Saudi kingdom for its brutality. If someone's god is at work here, it's one that punishes are more than it blesses and comforts.
But that, too, is part of the mentality: Don't mess up or someone's gonna gitcha. If you have any questions, best not to ask them or else you'll be singled out as a doubter--in something, anything, that makes the wrong people wonder about you. It creates a submissive, mousey polity that nods like bobbleheads.
And there is the specter of oil, too, of course, which we desperately need because someone getting lots of money from it says so. It's all tied up in the reactionary, hyper-religious, pro-capitalist philosophy of Republicanism, arranged nicely so that most of the richest people regularly contribute to the campaigns that now, because of a mostly Republican-appointed Supreme Court, have few if any accountable strings attached to them.
Their god didn't completely arrange for all this, but since their god is obviously on their side, the implication is clear and obvious. Isn't it?
So, too, it is with the recent send-up of the Mueller report by Attorney General William Barr, whose four-page summary gave 45 and friends their immediate, though narrow, reasoning of vindication (which it isn't, but the delay in the publishing of the whole report plays upon the public's need to move on, which is the nice, neat strategy of obfuscation and substitution of other crises that this administration is awfully good at). Wait and see: religiosity will be worked into this massive mess in some subtle but clear way, so that the faithful will beat their breasts and conclude that divine intervention was at work every minute.
That makes resistance, or the Resistance, as it were, all that much more difficult to sustain, in Congress and out. 45ers don't want a fair discussion of anything, as they continually whine about not having: They want submission to their god's will, which by chance coincides with everything they could possibly want, even if it's not in their best interests. They want no discussion at all. They demand agreement.
We're the ones who are stupid, not them. After all, who could disagree with their god? Only those who refuse to think, or are so fundamentally evil that they are beyond salvation. If their dear leader is divinely destined to lead us, who are we to question? Remember Stephen Miller's then-ridiculous sounding comment that "the president is not to be questioned"? It wasn't posturing. He meant it.
That seems to be what Mike Pompeo thinks of those who object to our reversal of position on the Golan Heights--namely, that Israel can now have it forever. Never mind that it may lead to a future war, once Syria cleans up its act. Will war be the Lord's work, too? Only twisted minds can conclude that.
But then, what else can we conclude about the mentality we are dealing with? It's a mentality that I cannot merely disagree with. I am constantly repelled by it, as if it can't have anything to do with my country. How I wish.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
So it was that Mike Pompeo, the blessed Secretary of State, pronounced to Benjamin Netanjahu the other day that "The Lord was at work" in how Israel has been protected through the years.
Meet the prophet from Orange County. How does he come off in making such a pronouncement, especially in front of the leader of a nation based on the ascendance of a people who do not believe in the divinity of that same Lord?
But that's the thinking of the fuzzy-headed, excessively religiously afflicted members of this administration: Israel is the place for god's chosen people, thus America, which has also been blessed by god, stands as Israel's protector and caretaker in perpetuity.
Something like that. If I've missed a detail or two, so be it, but to these people, such details are superfluous, especially when supernatural forces are involved. It's called theocracy, espoused by those who do not accept anything not eventually connected to eternity, and are very willing to intimidate and bully those who do not submit to such thinking, if not treat them with condescending backhandedness. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, 45's horrible excuse for a press secretary, is such a person. If you can stand it for more than two minutes, listen to her lies and deflections through that lens.
Actually, there are far more nefarious forces at work, speaking of the awfulness of sins. Saudi Arabia protects Israel every bit as much as we do. The Saudis are sworn opponents of Iran, since the Saudis are Sunn-i Muslims and Iranians are Shi-ites. The difference between the two are about like the synods of the Lutheran church in America, but far more passionately drawn and viciously defended.
The Saudis govern about that viciously, too. They regularly torture and murder people who don't seem to adhere to the regime's absolute rule in the way that it prefers--thus the Khashoggi murder and the 45 administration's success in letting it slide without calling out, or sanctioning in any way, the Saudi kingdom for its brutality. If someone's god is at work here, it's one that punishes are more than it blesses and comforts.
But that, too, is part of the mentality: Don't mess up or someone's gonna gitcha. If you have any questions, best not to ask them or else you'll be singled out as a doubter--in something, anything, that makes the wrong people wonder about you. It creates a submissive, mousey polity that nods like bobbleheads.
And there is the specter of oil, too, of course, which we desperately need because someone getting lots of money from it says so. It's all tied up in the reactionary, hyper-religious, pro-capitalist philosophy of Republicanism, arranged nicely so that most of the richest people regularly contribute to the campaigns that now, because of a mostly Republican-appointed Supreme Court, have few if any accountable strings attached to them.
Their god didn't completely arrange for all this, but since their god is obviously on their side, the implication is clear and obvious. Isn't it?
So, too, it is with the recent send-up of the Mueller report by Attorney General William Barr, whose four-page summary gave 45 and friends their immediate, though narrow, reasoning of vindication (which it isn't, but the delay in the publishing of the whole report plays upon the public's need to move on, which is the nice, neat strategy of obfuscation and substitution of other crises that this administration is awfully good at). Wait and see: religiosity will be worked into this massive mess in some subtle but clear way, so that the faithful will beat their breasts and conclude that divine intervention was at work every minute.
That makes resistance, or the Resistance, as it were, all that much more difficult to sustain, in Congress and out. 45ers don't want a fair discussion of anything, as they continually whine about not having: They want submission to their god's will, which by chance coincides with everything they could possibly want, even if it's not in their best interests. They want no discussion at all. They demand agreement.
We're the ones who are stupid, not them. After all, who could disagree with their god? Only those who refuse to think, or are so fundamentally evil that they are beyond salvation. If their dear leader is divinely destined to lead us, who are we to question? Remember Stephen Miller's then-ridiculous sounding comment that "the president is not to be questioned"? It wasn't posturing. He meant it.
That seems to be what Mike Pompeo thinks of those who object to our reversal of position on the Golan Heights--namely, that Israel can now have it forever. Never mind that it may lead to a future war, once Syria cleans up its act. Will war be the Lord's work, too? Only twisted minds can conclude that.
But then, what else can we conclude about the mentality we are dealing with? It's a mentality that I cannot merely disagree with. I am constantly repelled by it, as if it can't have anything to do with my country. How I wish.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Thursday, March 14, 2019
Pelosi Made A Mistake. Here's Why.
There's a bit of grande dame in Nancy Pelosi, and not without cause. Her political position in American life has been hard-earned, and the prestige of being Speaker of the House is and should be equivalent to its power.
So when she said that she doesn't think 45 should be impeached, the world took notice. So did I. It's a mistake.
Perhaps she shouldn't have put it quite the way she did. She can say that she was doing no more than voicing the reality of the matter. No matter what 45 has done or what Mueller reports him to have done, the prostrate Republican Party will never, ever cross over and consider it from a legal standpoint--that is, the way the Constitution proclaims it. They will continue to circle their own wagons and (with perhaps a few exceptions) stand by him, regardless of how craven their regard for the rule of law is and will be from that moment.
In other words: Without the numbers, the trouble all that engenders is pointless. It takes a 2/3 majority to convict a sitting president of impeachment charges in the U.S. Senate, and barring something even more amazing that all the violations of norms and outrages that we already know about (Really now, what in blue blazes could that be?), nothing will stir their senses of propriety and decency in lieu of, well, winning, which they still believe they can do.
Until they don't, of course. Which they might not. They might just lose this gamble of completely sacrificing their independence and yielding whatever power they believe they have to assuage what they believe to be an unbudgeably angry mob out there and fall prey to getting primary-ed.
In doing so, they are violating the first rule of having power: Don't give it up unless you know you are getting something in return. Don't show your hand until you know what other people have--as much as possible to ascertain. Which is what Nancy Pelosi has just done.
In declaring herself flat-out against impeachment, in saying that 45 "just isn't worth the trouble," even though in a sense he certainly isn't (I feel her flipping the back of her hand at him, like the door-to-door salesman who doesn't yet know how the internet works), she is handing him the one thing he doesn't operate well without: certainty. He is, after all, a political novice, but extremely sophisticated about business relationships. He equates the two, which means that he has 'won'. Why? Because he has stood his ground while the other side caved. He now knows that there will be no effort to dislodge him from office before the 2020 elections, since Pelosi would need a far clearer indication that the Senate would seriously entertain impeachment charges in more than a token fashion. He can now do planning he wasn't sure he could do.
He's much less on the defensive now. With someone like this, you don't want to make him the least bit comfortable or to give him confidence on top of his bravado. He's outrageous enough the way it is.
Maybe she would have said this anyhow. But to say it now, this directly instead of in the kind of political code that people like her are known for and rather skilled at, and early in the deliberations, takes away the sting and unease which each revelation the House investigations make. It takes the gravitas out of the question, "So what?" She could have waited down this path a bit. 45 has a habit of saying ridiculous, self-accusatory things if the tension around an issue remains, making him look more deeply and more continuously unhinged--thus adding to the need to impeach and remove. There is always the possibility of White House leaks, too, telling us even more evidence of corruption and/or incompetence.
Pelosi could be sending a different kind of resistance message, though. She could be telling her House allies that standing up against the ridiculous, destructive budget proposals that 45 has just released will take enough work. The investigations, too, that are presently going on--whether Mueller's report will buttress them sufficiently or not--will be taking up a tremendous amount of time and work, and each revelation of improprieties and probable illegalities will build an enormous case for whomever survives the cascade of Democratic presidential candidates who are already lining up for the Iowa caucuses, ten months ahead of time.
And to say it now releases her from the accusation, which would have eventually surfaced, that she pulled the rug from under the investigatory committees at the last minute, and disappointed nearly everyone even more deeply.
But then, she might be thinking that she could avoid being forced into a corner and do something she shouldn't be doing by coming out now and not later. No politician, however popular, acts completely for someone else. She still needs to watch her own back.
To be sure, she left the door open a crack. She didn't rule it out completely. But the buzz that it created basically allows the Republicans to move that piece forward on the chess board, and post an even thicker firewall for the Democrats to overcome--as in, You won't win anyhow, so let's end this discussion, shall we? And that could be even more damaging to Democratic hopes in 2020, say some.
I don't think so. Remember that the ultimate result of the 'failure' of the Clinton impeachment trial was to get a Republican president who was nearly as awful as this one, which was in itself enough of a disaster, by allowing the candidate to obliquely, but cleverly, refer to the whole business in terms of respecting the Constitution and to consistently drive that point home. No reason the Democrats can't do the same in 2020. But now that Pelosi has backed away, they can be accused of chickening out--an indication of weakness that 45 will only exploit, as illogically as he does so but effectively for his emotionally-afflicted base.
Pelosi believes or wants to believe that the American people, seeing the obvious mistake they've made, will correct the course in 2020 and elect a Democrat to the presidency and, based on the 2018 mid-terms, has reason to think so. That, though, is itself a long and arduous path in which 45 will be given every opportunity to go on the offensive. Indeed, his campaign has already gone up on TV with an ad criticizing Beto O'Rourke before he even declared for the campaign, the strategy behind which is mysterious but perhaps crafty because maybe he fears O'Rourke above all other candidates (interestingly). The only way 45 could have gone on the offensive in an impeachment hearing is with his attorneys and on Twitter--but only in response to the facts presented to the Senate as acquired through a thorough and legal process. By definition, he'd already be on the defensive. And the smearing of damaging facts would proceed nonetheless.
Again, she's giving up too much, it says here. It's risky either way, though. And the tension builds either way.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
So when she said that she doesn't think 45 should be impeached, the world took notice. So did I. It's a mistake.
Perhaps she shouldn't have put it quite the way she did. She can say that she was doing no more than voicing the reality of the matter. No matter what 45 has done or what Mueller reports him to have done, the prostrate Republican Party will never, ever cross over and consider it from a legal standpoint--that is, the way the Constitution proclaims it. They will continue to circle their own wagons and (with perhaps a few exceptions) stand by him, regardless of how craven their regard for the rule of law is and will be from that moment.
In other words: Without the numbers, the trouble all that engenders is pointless. It takes a 2/3 majority to convict a sitting president of impeachment charges in the U.S. Senate, and barring something even more amazing that all the violations of norms and outrages that we already know about (Really now, what in blue blazes could that be?), nothing will stir their senses of propriety and decency in lieu of, well, winning, which they still believe they can do.
Until they don't, of course. Which they might not. They might just lose this gamble of completely sacrificing their independence and yielding whatever power they believe they have to assuage what they believe to be an unbudgeably angry mob out there and fall prey to getting primary-ed.
In doing so, they are violating the first rule of having power: Don't give it up unless you know you are getting something in return. Don't show your hand until you know what other people have--as much as possible to ascertain. Which is what Nancy Pelosi has just done.
In declaring herself flat-out against impeachment, in saying that 45 "just isn't worth the trouble," even though in a sense he certainly isn't (I feel her flipping the back of her hand at him, like the door-to-door salesman who doesn't yet know how the internet works), she is handing him the one thing he doesn't operate well without: certainty. He is, after all, a political novice, but extremely sophisticated about business relationships. He equates the two, which means that he has 'won'. Why? Because he has stood his ground while the other side caved. He now knows that there will be no effort to dislodge him from office before the 2020 elections, since Pelosi would need a far clearer indication that the Senate would seriously entertain impeachment charges in more than a token fashion. He can now do planning he wasn't sure he could do.
He's much less on the defensive now. With someone like this, you don't want to make him the least bit comfortable or to give him confidence on top of his bravado. He's outrageous enough the way it is.
Maybe she would have said this anyhow. But to say it now, this directly instead of in the kind of political code that people like her are known for and rather skilled at, and early in the deliberations, takes away the sting and unease which each revelation the House investigations make. It takes the gravitas out of the question, "So what?" She could have waited down this path a bit. 45 has a habit of saying ridiculous, self-accusatory things if the tension around an issue remains, making him look more deeply and more continuously unhinged--thus adding to the need to impeach and remove. There is always the possibility of White House leaks, too, telling us even more evidence of corruption and/or incompetence.
Pelosi could be sending a different kind of resistance message, though. She could be telling her House allies that standing up against the ridiculous, destructive budget proposals that 45 has just released will take enough work. The investigations, too, that are presently going on--whether Mueller's report will buttress them sufficiently or not--will be taking up a tremendous amount of time and work, and each revelation of improprieties and probable illegalities will build an enormous case for whomever survives the cascade of Democratic presidential candidates who are already lining up for the Iowa caucuses, ten months ahead of time.
And to say it now releases her from the accusation, which would have eventually surfaced, that she pulled the rug from under the investigatory committees at the last minute, and disappointed nearly everyone even more deeply.
But then, she might be thinking that she could avoid being forced into a corner and do something she shouldn't be doing by coming out now and not later. No politician, however popular, acts completely for someone else. She still needs to watch her own back.
To be sure, she left the door open a crack. She didn't rule it out completely. But the buzz that it created basically allows the Republicans to move that piece forward on the chess board, and post an even thicker firewall for the Democrats to overcome--as in, You won't win anyhow, so let's end this discussion, shall we? And that could be even more damaging to Democratic hopes in 2020, say some.
I don't think so. Remember that the ultimate result of the 'failure' of the Clinton impeachment trial was to get a Republican president who was nearly as awful as this one, which was in itself enough of a disaster, by allowing the candidate to obliquely, but cleverly, refer to the whole business in terms of respecting the Constitution and to consistently drive that point home. No reason the Democrats can't do the same in 2020. But now that Pelosi has backed away, they can be accused of chickening out--an indication of weakness that 45 will only exploit, as illogically as he does so but effectively for his emotionally-afflicted base.
Pelosi believes or wants to believe that the American people, seeing the obvious mistake they've made, will correct the course in 2020 and elect a Democrat to the presidency and, based on the 2018 mid-terms, has reason to think so. That, though, is itself a long and arduous path in which 45 will be given every opportunity to go on the offensive. Indeed, his campaign has already gone up on TV with an ad criticizing Beto O'Rourke before he even declared for the campaign, the strategy behind which is mysterious but perhaps crafty because maybe he fears O'Rourke above all other candidates (interestingly). The only way 45 could have gone on the offensive in an impeachment hearing is with his attorneys and on Twitter--but only in response to the facts presented to the Senate as acquired through a thorough and legal process. By definition, he'd already be on the defensive. And the smearing of damaging facts would proceed nonetheless.
Again, she's giving up too much, it says here. It's risky either way, though. And the tension builds either way.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Monday, March 4, 2019
We Really ARE Wired Differently. Now What? How Do We Proceed?
It's nobody's fault. Really.
But it's there. Granted, it's science, with which not all would agree or to which not all would submit (part of the point to be made below). But it's provable, within the boundaries of human reason.
We're wired differently. Yeah, we are. We react to different stimuli in the universe in different ways. It's in-bred, which is to say: It isn't anyone's fault. Nobody did this to you. It's just the way your particular brain is figuring things out.
And it doesn't matter where we're from, either. If I were writing this in Bejing or Paris or Johannesburg, it would be the same.
The March, 2019 issue of The Atlantic discusses this point in an article entitled "The Yuck Factor." Summarized thus: What attracts me may disgust you, and vice versa. And there are not many things available to which attraction and disgust can be universally attached.
I say, yuck. You say, cool. I say, What? How could you? You say, Sure. Why not?
The phenomena of the universe, therefore, are inherently divisive. Whatever you like, someone else undoubtedly doesn't like it. We disagree on nearly everything. "About one-fifth of the people are against everything all of the time," said Robert Kennedy in 1964.
And the connection of one yuck to another is inevitable. "...researchers found that resistance to immigration is greatest in states with the highest incidence of infectious disease and where worry about this, as reflected by internet activity, has also been high," said the article.
Which may, or may not, have something to do with resistance to vaccination for measles, called "communist" by one legislator in Arizona, as reversed from logic as that may be. (Think and do, or don't do, what you'd like, ma'am. I've been in for a shot. I'm good to go. Got a pneumonia shot, too, though I must say my thoughts on Marx haven't changed much.)
But there is also a political dimension to this that's been discovered by scientists. They tested people during the 2008 campaign for fear of germ spreading. Those with a higher fear said they were more likely to vote for John McCain instead of Barack Obama. Across the board, they found, the higher the level of disgust, the more conservative people were, the more inclined to submit to authority, the more that religiosity governs their judgments.
Thus 45's efforts to warn people against the "invasion" of immigrants along our southern border, and his description of them as murderers, rapists and drug dealers: To raise the 'yuck' factor and remove any thoughts of accepting them as normal. If Robert Kennedy was right, he's already starting with about 20 percent of us. Raising it beyond that isn't too difficult as long as one has the bully pulpit and high persuadability--which, undeniably, he has.
So the outrage which is supposed to take place about children of unprocessed immigrants being penned up so severely that they can't even hug each other isn't universal. It perpetuates the idea that there's something wrong with these people.
Well, sure there is. They're running for their lives. They've been intimidated by gangs and drug cartels that they have, and want to have, nothing to do with.
Gin-up the populist masses, though, and they'll both condemn and ignore these folks. That's their problem. They probably haven't showered in a while, either, after a long walk in hot weather.
Yuck. Build the wall.
The farther away the sentiment, the longer it lasts. Up here, in the upper Midwest, it resonates very, very well. Never mind that eventually, these refugees will get here; they will want and need jobs; their children will fill our schools; and they will intermarry white folks. And they will keep coming, regardless of whatever's thrown in their way.
Does it do much good to recall fairly recent history, where Europeans fled from communists by burrowing under and flying over walls, and cutting the barbed wire fencing of captivity? Please tell me the vast difference. I can't stretch myself to see it.
Maybe it's me. Maybe I just don't get it. Maybe I've lost the true meaning of what it is to be American.
Either other folks believe they have it, or they just don't care. Start a conversation with them, and they end it altogether: I don't want to talk about it anymore. They cling to Fox News, they have enough (non- or anti-) information, so the situation is clearly defined for them (another inclination of non-tolerance is excessive simplification and sharp definition). You just can't get anywhere deeper with them, and there is nothing close to compromise. Done.
How should we proceed with them? Keep calling them friends when it's clear that their thinking is or has become so stolidly unimaginative? When it's so uncomfortable to hang out with them any longer because though you want to remain friendly, you can't help but push back in strong terms?
Worse, when everyone knows the elephants in the room can't be addressed, is that any way to advance meaningful relationships? Do I need to spend more than five minutes with those who take attitudes with which I disagree strongly, exchanging greetings and brief catch-ups about previous matters?
And if the answer to that question is no, is there something wrong with me? I know that I'm not the only one with this challenge.
But if I would be in a room with someone from the Conservative Political Action Caucus, who wasted their time listening to 45 prattle on with his jumbled, twisted, exaggerated, disingenuous nonsense for two hours the other day, and they start going off likewise, I'd feel that I'd have two choices: Tell them off civilly but in no uncertain terms, and/or leave the room.
Neither of which will endear myself to them, or many others.
I'll step up to confront, but I don't invite or cherish the opportunity. I'd just as soon walk away. That's the way to remain nice, but it doesn't give anyone else the chance to exchange views. I'm trying to remain polite and sometimes the only way is not to go there. And now that I know that in essence they can't help themselves, the temptation is to simply but rather condescendingly write them off as underinformed or narrow or unthinking--unattractive in any event.
Which doesn't make for a better, overall America, because there is no exchange and no trade in ideas, which is the very basis of democracy. Not only that, but if someone else is particularly strident and no one responds, it only encourages them. I know this. And yet.
If I avoid it, too, I'm avoiding something which has been much of my lifeblood for, well, years now, even decades. Trying to step around it, pretending that politics and social dynamics don't exist or aren't important, feels phony and stilted.
To which I say: Yuck.
You first.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
But it's there. Granted, it's science, with which not all would agree or to which not all would submit (part of the point to be made below). But it's provable, within the boundaries of human reason.
We're wired differently. Yeah, we are. We react to different stimuli in the universe in different ways. It's in-bred, which is to say: It isn't anyone's fault. Nobody did this to you. It's just the way your particular brain is figuring things out.
And it doesn't matter where we're from, either. If I were writing this in Bejing or Paris or Johannesburg, it would be the same.
The March, 2019 issue of The Atlantic discusses this point in an article entitled "The Yuck Factor." Summarized thus: What attracts me may disgust you, and vice versa. And there are not many things available to which attraction and disgust can be universally attached.
I say, yuck. You say, cool. I say, What? How could you? You say, Sure. Why not?
The phenomena of the universe, therefore, are inherently divisive. Whatever you like, someone else undoubtedly doesn't like it. We disagree on nearly everything. "About one-fifth of the people are against everything all of the time," said Robert Kennedy in 1964.
And the connection of one yuck to another is inevitable. "...researchers found that resistance to immigration is greatest in states with the highest incidence of infectious disease and where worry about this, as reflected by internet activity, has also been high," said the article.
Which may, or may not, have something to do with resistance to vaccination for measles, called "communist" by one legislator in Arizona, as reversed from logic as that may be. (Think and do, or don't do, what you'd like, ma'am. I've been in for a shot. I'm good to go. Got a pneumonia shot, too, though I must say my thoughts on Marx haven't changed much.)
But there is also a political dimension to this that's been discovered by scientists. They tested people during the 2008 campaign for fear of germ spreading. Those with a higher fear said they were more likely to vote for John McCain instead of Barack Obama. Across the board, they found, the higher the level of disgust, the more conservative people were, the more inclined to submit to authority, the more that religiosity governs their judgments.
Thus 45's efforts to warn people against the "invasion" of immigrants along our southern border, and his description of them as murderers, rapists and drug dealers: To raise the 'yuck' factor and remove any thoughts of accepting them as normal. If Robert Kennedy was right, he's already starting with about 20 percent of us. Raising it beyond that isn't too difficult as long as one has the bully pulpit and high persuadability--which, undeniably, he has.
So the outrage which is supposed to take place about children of unprocessed immigrants being penned up so severely that they can't even hug each other isn't universal. It perpetuates the idea that there's something wrong with these people.
Well, sure there is. They're running for their lives. They've been intimidated by gangs and drug cartels that they have, and want to have, nothing to do with.
Gin-up the populist masses, though, and they'll both condemn and ignore these folks. That's their problem. They probably haven't showered in a while, either, after a long walk in hot weather.
Yuck. Build the wall.
The farther away the sentiment, the longer it lasts. Up here, in the upper Midwest, it resonates very, very well. Never mind that eventually, these refugees will get here; they will want and need jobs; their children will fill our schools; and they will intermarry white folks. And they will keep coming, regardless of whatever's thrown in their way.
Does it do much good to recall fairly recent history, where Europeans fled from communists by burrowing under and flying over walls, and cutting the barbed wire fencing of captivity? Please tell me the vast difference. I can't stretch myself to see it.
Maybe it's me. Maybe I just don't get it. Maybe I've lost the true meaning of what it is to be American.
Either other folks believe they have it, or they just don't care. Start a conversation with them, and they end it altogether: I don't want to talk about it anymore. They cling to Fox News, they have enough (non- or anti-) information, so the situation is clearly defined for them (another inclination of non-tolerance is excessive simplification and sharp definition). You just can't get anywhere deeper with them, and there is nothing close to compromise. Done.
How should we proceed with them? Keep calling them friends when it's clear that their thinking is or has become so stolidly unimaginative? When it's so uncomfortable to hang out with them any longer because though you want to remain friendly, you can't help but push back in strong terms?
Worse, when everyone knows the elephants in the room can't be addressed, is that any way to advance meaningful relationships? Do I need to spend more than five minutes with those who take attitudes with which I disagree strongly, exchanging greetings and brief catch-ups about previous matters?
And if the answer to that question is no, is there something wrong with me? I know that I'm not the only one with this challenge.
But if I would be in a room with someone from the Conservative Political Action Caucus, who wasted their time listening to 45 prattle on with his jumbled, twisted, exaggerated, disingenuous nonsense for two hours the other day, and they start going off likewise, I'd feel that I'd have two choices: Tell them off civilly but in no uncertain terms, and/or leave the room.
Neither of which will endear myself to them, or many others.
I'll step up to confront, but I don't invite or cherish the opportunity. I'd just as soon walk away. That's the way to remain nice, but it doesn't give anyone else the chance to exchange views. I'm trying to remain polite and sometimes the only way is not to go there. And now that I know that in essence they can't help themselves, the temptation is to simply but rather condescendingly write them off as underinformed or narrow or unthinking--unattractive in any event.
Which doesn't make for a better, overall America, because there is no exchange and no trade in ideas, which is the very basis of democracy. Not only that, but if someone else is particularly strident and no one responds, it only encourages them. I know this. And yet.
If I avoid it, too, I'm avoiding something which has been much of my lifeblood for, well, years now, even decades. Trying to step around it, pretending that politics and social dynamics don't exist or aren't important, feels phony and stilted.
To which I say: Yuck.
You first.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
