Wednesday, April 24, 2024

#115 / Just Stop Trying!




I really like it when professional pundits are found saying the exact same thing that I am saying in my daily blog. For instance, in a column in the San Francisco Chronicle, published on Sunday, March 10, 2024, Joe Mathews told his readers, "Please stop trying to 'save democracy.'"

"Just stop trying," he said. "If you're a politician," he added, "stop promising to save it." 

Let me give you a little excerpt from Mathews' column, and urge you to join me in a round of applause:

Democracy isn’t something you save. The sooner we stop talking about saving democracy, the better off democracy will be. 
Our mindless recitation of “saving democracy” — everyone from President Joe Biden to Sascha Baron Cohen has pledged its rescue — demonstrates how little we understand about the governing systems that organize our lives. 
To start, the words “democracy” and “save” don’t fit together. 
Democracy is not a penalty shot saved by a goalkeeper. Democracy is not a dollar saved by putting it in the bank. Democracy is not a file saved in Microsoft Word. 
Democracy is not even the migrant saved from drowning in the Rio Grande. 
It’s easy to get confused about democracy’s meaning because we use the word “democracy” promiscuously. We use it to refer to things in politics or government with which we agree. We use it to describe the status quo in countries that think of themselves as democracies. 
We also use “democracy” to refer to our post-World War II liberal order, supposedly superior to all other systems, even though that order often protects military and corporate powers that undermine democracy. We use “democracy” to mean elections, even though many countries with autocracies stage elections. 
After 18 years of convening conversations about democracy around the world, I have found a more useful definition of democracy. Democracy is best understood as four words:  
Everyday people governing themselves (emphasis added).

Besides that line about democracy being best understood as "everyday people governing themselves," I particularly liked Mathews' statement that "democracy isn't something you save." 

Exactly! Democracy isn't a "thing." Democracy is something you DO! A better name for what people typically call "democracy" is "self-government," and you can't "save" self-government - you can't even "have" self-government - at least you can't "have" self-government unless you get directly involved in government, yourself. 

Tuesday, April 23, 2024

#114 / A Business And Financial "Genius"?

 


You will remember, I am sure, that one of the reasons that the people of the United States of America elected Donald J. Trump as president, in 2016, is that Trump was popularly believed to be a business and financial "genius." He ran a television show ("The Apprentice") that was premised on exactly this hypothesis.

A headline in the April 17, 2024, edition of The Wall Street Journal, casts some doubt on the premise: 


That is the hardcopy version of the headline. Here's a link to the online version of the article, which you may or may not be able to see, if you are not a subscriber to The Journal. The online version of the article has the following headline: "Trump’s Truth Social Stake Shrinks by $3.4 Billion After Stock Tanks."

I read the article, and it made me question whether or not our former president's "business and financial genius" reputation is, or ever was, actually warranted. Frankly, the way I am reading the news, Trump is not actually a "genius" of any kind, but he does have to be credited with being an extremely talented "con man," which Merriam-Webster defines as follows: "a person who tricks other people in order to get their money."

That pretty much fits the facts about our former president. At least I think so. 

Monday, April 22, 2024

#113 / Thinking About Moby Dick

 


The wonderful image above, which is from Santa Cruz artist Marie Gabrielle, has put me in mind of Moby Dick, although the whales depicted are quite "local," spouting off right here in Monterey Bay, and not in the South Seas somewhere. That image above, as I suddenly realized when I was writing out that first sentence, can be seen as a kind of visual reference to what I do right here, in this daily blog: "Spout Off." 

In case it is of interest, I do have a close family connection to Moby Dick, Herman Melville's great novel. My wife Marilyn has written extensively about Moby Dick, and it is her argument that Ahab's pursuit of the White Whale is actually intended to refer to a writer's pursuit of that singular written work that both haunts and inspires the writer, but that seems always to elude capture. Click this link if you want to get a fuller argument in support of that reading of Moby Dick.

My posting from Sunday, March 10th, which was, essentially, a fragment of my own writing, and which fragment has just recently resurfaced from the depths of some long-forgotten files, has made me think, rather explicitly, about my own writing, and about what I think I am pursuing in these daily blog postings, which I began publishing on January 1, 2010, and which have appeared, on a daily basis, every day since then. 

I have, metaphorically speaking, been on a long voyage, and perhaps, like Melville, I have been pursuing something more singular than what can be seen in the series of my "spouting off" thoughts that have surfaced in the more than 5,000 blog postings that have appeared right here. As that fragment of my writing said, "I am pretty sure I know some things." 

I think I do know some things, and what I must admit is that I would like to be able to set them down, in some singular form, so others can grasp their import - not as a scattered commentary but in some integrated way, as a piece of writing that can inspire action. 

I believe that we all, individually and collectively, are coming to a testing point. Many perceive that we will confront this testing point in the elections coming up in November of this year. There is truth in that, I think, though I believe that the testing point we are soon to encounter - that we are already encountering, in fact - is greater, and more serious, and more dangerous than the test we will face in our presidential elections. 

I am going to continue pursue the singular thought that both haunts and inspires me - that the time has come to renew the American Revolution, shifting power as significantly as political power was shifted in 1776. 

Can that even be done? I do believe it can. 

I think we need to try. 

Sunday, April 21, 2024

#112 / Civil War: A Nihilistic Wish Fulfillment?

 
 

There is now a movie out that portrays what a full-scale "Civil War" in the United States of America might look like. "Civil War," in fact, is the title of the film. Click below to view one of the official trailers: 


Click this link for a rather lengthy film review, presented by way of a fourteen-minute video. 

The New Yorker has published a movie review (click right here), and so has The New York Times (here's the link to click for that one). Joe Mathews has devoted one of his columns to the film, as well. The paywalls maintained by most online publications may or may not let you slip by and actually read what these commentators have to say about the film. The same caution applies to the review published by The Wall Street Journal

If you would like to give that review a try, and find out what The Wall Street Journal has to say about this movie, you can click the title link, below. Who knows? Maybe The Journal's paywall will let you read its article. The Journal's article is titled, "Carnage Without Cause," and just in case The Journal's paywall stands firm against non-subscribers, which is a distinct possibility, here is a taste of what Kyle Smith's film review in The Journal tells us about the movie: 

This supposed cautionary tale isn’t really about American divides at all. It’s about the psychology of journalists, specifically the transnational band of roving war reporters and photographers who chase human misery from one gory corner of the globe to the next. Kirsten Dunst as Lee, a renowned photographer, and Wagner Moura as her longtime partner, Joel, represent two types. Hollow, blank-eyed and so inured to slaughter that she practically has bark for skin, Lee thinks of her job in terms of grim duty. She witnesses humanity at its worst, presents its harsh truths to the world, and lets others decide what to do. Joel, though, is in it for the thrill of carnage—“What a rush!” he says after one gruesome firefight. 
For a long and dangerous drive across a landscape choked with burned-out cars and mangled corpses, the two bring along a wily old print reporter, Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), plus a 23-year-old newbie, Jessie (Cailee Spaeny of “Priscilla”), who worships the flinty Lee and is eager to get some tips to launch her own career. The journalists embed themselves in firefights, observe two men being casually tortured in a car wash, engage in adrenaline-junkie stunts, stop in a town untouched by war to try on clothes, pause to watch a sniper attack, and meet a sinister combatant (Jesse Plemons) who is filling a mass grave with scores of bodies. In a sickening climax, tanks and helicopters from the secessionist movement calling itself the Western Front tear up the National Mall and assault the White House. Mr. Garland appears to have spent most of his $50 million budget here, on an extended act of political torture porn for those who might be tickled to see the Lincoln Memorial getting strafed (though he cuts away just as the structure seems about to collapse into rubble). 
Mr. Garland’s America isn’t merely polarized to the point of armed conflict but an actual failed state, like Libya or Afghanistan, in which any number of armed factions play endlessly for advantage. That is mindless fantasy, not mordant commentary. “Civil War” is superficially silly—Mr. Garland writes himself into a trap in one tense scene and gets out of it with an absurd moment of action-hero gusto that is, as presented, not possible—but it’s also deeply silly. It’s a statement movie that contains no insights at all (emphasis added).

Tyler Cowen, who is the Holbert L. Harris Professor of Economics at George Mason University and also Director of the Mercatus Center, is a prolific blogger, and he has a more positive view of the film. At least, that is how I read his commentary. I am thinking, though, not having actually seen the movie as yet, that The Journal's evaluation is likely to be more persuasive to me. The Journal calls the movie "political torture porn" and "nihilistic wish fulfillment."

I am particularly concerned about that last description - and about its possible applicability. I do think that a significant number of people in the United States have simply given up on our government, and on our "system of government," with some believing that almost anything would be better than what we have now. It is rather difficult to find those who fervently believe that our system of "self-government" is a truly great, and wonderful, and worthwhile achievement. It is ever harder to find assent when suggesting that our nation, from the proclamations first made in The Declaration of Independence, which were then incorporated into the specifics spelled out in our Constitution, is as wonderful as I, myself, believe it is.

As I have just revealed, I am still a "believer." Despite all the horrors in which the United States has been involved - right from the beginning, and even before that - there has been, and I am convinced there still is, something "exceptional" - and I mean exceptionally good - about this nation and its history. Regular followers of my blog postings know my pitch. Read Hannah Arendt!

But slavery, the denigration of women, the destruction of the natural environment, the slaughter of native peoples, the wars of conquest, and the capitulation of democracy to the reign of capital and the oligarchs,  all these are real things - and that is only a "partial list." Some of these things, make no mistake, truly are horrors (and horrors not yet ended). For some, the truth of the "horrors" present themselves as more "real" than any positive view of the nation and its government could ever be - with any such "positive view" being classified as nothing more than a fanciful excursion into an undeserved patriotism. 

Any "believers" who don't understand what I am talking about might want to read The New York Times' book, The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story. That book should help the reader gain some insight into how a nihilistic view of this nation and its history seems to be well-founded on fact. For those with a nihilistic view, a "Civil War," like the one portrayed in this recent film, might seem quite attractive - picturing it, as the film apparently does, as a condign and well-merited judgment against our national failures. 

But, here is my thought: We do not need another Civil War. 

We need, in fact, the very opposite, a Civil "Coming Together." We need, once again, to consider ourselves "One Nation, Under God." 

ONE nation, I'm saying, amidst all our diversity, is what we need to insist upon, and putting an emphasis on that "civility" idea would be a good idea, indeed.

I wouldn't want this new movie about "Civil War" to give anyone the wrong idea. I am just a little bit worried that it might.



Saturday, April 20, 2024

#111 / For The Purpose Of Action



 
The above photograph of Hannah Arendt, in triplicate, accompanies an article that appeared on the "Literary Hub" website. The article is titled, "Why We Should All Read Hannah Arendt Now." The article is an extract from a book by Lyndsey Stonebridge, a professor in the Department of English Literature at the University of Birmingham, in Great Britain. 

Those who follow this blog will perhaps remember my previous mentions of Stonebridge, and of her new book, We Are Free To Change The World. To revisit my earlier commentary, click right here. I am still enthusiastically recommending the Stonebridge book, and that we "Listen To Lindsey," but the Literary Hub article is a nice shortcut.

That said, I did not sit down to type out this blog posting in order to talk again about Stonebridge's book. Instead, I was prompted to the keyboard by my recent reading of an article by Roger Berkowitz, entitled, "Hannah Arendt: Power, Action and the Foundation of Freedom." If you click on that link, I think you should be able to read the article (or download it, should you want to do that). It is only eight pages long, and Berkowitz' article is well worth your time and trouble. 

In short, Berkowitz' article asserts that "an inquiry into the 'nature of human power' is at the very center of Hannah Arendt's political thinking." 

It is common sense today that power is dangerous, a sentiment heard in the saying: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Against this cautionary view, Arendt argues that power is a necessary and salutary quality of politics, one that should rather be augmented than limited. 

Arendt goes on to say:

There is no legitimate government without power, [and that kind of legitimate] power emerges from the action of citizens in concert. Power involves citizen participation in public affairs, and power is the root of all self-government (emphasis added).

Power, in Arendt's view, "comes into being only if and when men join themselves together for the purpose of action, and it will disappear when, for whatever reason, they disperse and desert one another. Hence, binding and promising, combining and covenanting are the means by which power is kept in existence (emphasis added)."

"Dictators," authoritarian personalities, and ultimately totalitarianism itself, are called into existence as a response to the felt powerlessness of ordinary people. Many, today, are worried about the possibility that the United States might be on the brink of choosing such an authoritarian path. To the extent that we see ourselves as "powerless," the chances of such a thing happening are magnified.

We are not, however, powerless, as we will find when we "join together for the purpose of action." Coming together in small groups of friends, who decide to take it upon themselves to initiate the actions needed properly to address the dangers and the opportunities of the moment, is how we can, and will, build the power that will sustain self-government. 

If we are serious, we can help build that kind of power with a mutual pledge. I recited such a pledge in an earlier blog posting. Arendt, as a knowledgeable and discerning student of the American Revolution, knew all about it. 

When we find ourselves in dangerous times, that is precisely the moment when we most need to come together and to ally ourselves, as friends, joining in a common effort "for the purpose of action." 

When we do come together this way - and this is, really, the task before us now - let us pledge to each other, and to ourselves, that we will dedicate "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" to the tasks to which we are called. 


Friday, April 19, 2024

#110 / Rethink Everything

     


On April 6, 2024, The New York Times ran an article titled, "Power by Proxy: How Iran Shapes the Mideast." As might be expected from that headline, the article illuminates the various conflicts that seem to define this part of the world, with many of these conflicts, if not all of them, being based on religious differences. 

Since that article appeared, as you will undoubtedly remember, Iran launched a massive missile attack on Israel, billed in our press as more or less totally ineffective. Now, the world is waiting for what happens next. End of the world, next stop? That is certainly one option. Biblical references to Armageddon may be relevant! However, unless and until some future and definitive event or events occur, let's remember the words of Bob Dylan, admittedly sung and spoken in a much different context: "Now ain't the time for your tears." 

While the thoughts of Thomas Friedman are much less poetically expressed, a Times opinion column by Friedman, published on April 10th, conveys a sentiment similar to the one expressed in Dylan's song. The Friedman column was titled, "Israel: Cease-Fire, Get Hostages, Leave Gaza, Rethink Everything."

I'd like to stress the "rethink everything" suggestion. Friedman, who is pretty well informed on what's happening in Israel, and Gaza, and in the Middle East in general, gives us about a 5% chance of making things better. That sounds like a long shot, to be sure, but here's what Friedman says, in arguing for us to try to avoid what the pundits predict: 

I have read all the articles about how a two-state solution is now impossible. I think they are 95 percent correct. But I am going to focus on the 5-percent chance that they are wrong, and the chance that courageous leadership can make them wrong. Because the alternative is a 100-percent certain forever war, with bigger and more precise weapons that will destroy both societies.

So, if we don't want Armageddon, says Friedman, we have a 5% chance for peace. We need to go for it, I'd say!


Thursday, April 18, 2024

#109 / And Now, Terrifying Solar Storms

 

 
The New Yorker magazine recently published an article titled, "What A Major Solar Storm Could Do To Our Planet." Candidly, if (or when) one of these solar storms occurs, the problems associated with such a solar storm would dwarf the kind of problems caused by the kind of million-acre wildfires I mentioned yesterday. Such wildfires might well seem like a minor inconvenience. 

Below, I am quoting a few words on solar storms from the article by Kathryn Schulz (she calls them "space weather"). Schulz seems to be The New Yorker's disaster specialist. If you haven't yet read her unforgettable article from 2015, about the likelihood of a major earthquake in the Pacific Northwest, click the following link to read, "The Really Big One." 

Here, though, more recently, is Schulz outlining the damages that a major solar storm could cause: 

Science can take a long time to make inroads into public awareness, let alone public policy, so space weather remained a mostly marginal subject until 2008, when the National Academy of Sciences convened a group of experts to assess the nation’s capacity to endure its terrestrial effects. Later that year, the N.A.S. published a report on the findings, “Severe Space Weather Events: Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts.”

The title was dry; the contents were not. The report noted that the Earth hadn’t experienced a Carrington-size storm during the space age, or, for that matter, during the age of widespread electrification, and that much of the country’s critical infrastructure seemed unlikely to withstand one. Extensive damage to satellites would compromise everything from communications to national security, while extensive damage to the power grid would compromise everything: health care, transportation, agriculture, emergency response, water and sanitation, the financial industry, the continuity of government. The report estimated that recovery from a Carrington-class storm could take up to a decade and cost many trillions of dollars (emphasis added).

Living in Santa Cruz, California, as I do, I am a customer of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and when a big storm hits, with heavy rains and winds, I am not at all surprised when the power goes out. Let me be clear that I am talking about a "terrestrial" storm, not a "space storm," as discussed in Schulz' article. 

When my power does go out, I wait, patiently, for the voicemail-message that I know will be forthcoming. A mechanical voice tells me that my power is out, verifying the address number, and lets me know how many others are similarly afflicted. This winter, one of these PG&E bulletins told me that eighteen (18) other homes were affected; on another occasion, the bulletin told me that 2,887 homes were affected. I was also told, in each case, how long it would be until PG&E thought power would be restored. In both cases, the bulletin gave me times from a couple of hours to two days. And, in both cases, PG&E restored power more quickly than their bulletins had predicted. 

Consider what might happen in the kind of "solar storm" discussed in that New Yorker article: I could look forward to NO bulletins, of course, because all cellphone and landline communications would be out of commission. However, presuming what such a bulletin might have said, I might well be told (1) that my power is out, verifying my address; (2) that 100,000,000 million other homes are also affected; and (3) that my power would be retored by 12:00 midnight ten years later. 

Like I say, this could be worse than that million-acre wildfire possibility. I would not, of course, be able to get any money out of my bank. My credit cards wouldn't work, and I am guessing that the water and sewer system serving my home would quickly stop working, too, since there wouldn't be any electricity for those city services, either. 

What should we do if we want to take seriously the possibility of another "Big One," or that a "solar storm" might hit? Such disasters - those "Schulz-type" disasters, giant earthquakes and solar storms - are unpredictable and might never occur. Given that, I tend to think that our first impulse would probably be to do nothing, at least individually, or personally. Funding the government to prepare for such disasters would be wise, but since we can't predict when such natural disasters might occur - and they might never occur - it would be "natural," and might even be "rational," to face those problems when they happen - if they do. 

I do think that the global warming disaster is different. It is not a hypothetical possibility. It's an ongoing reality. It really is that boulder bouncing downhill, ready to crush our human realities below. For the non-hypothetical reality of global warming, I do think we need to get "prepared." What I suggested yesterday, I note, would also come in handy in one of those "Schulz-type" disasters, too: Find some friends!


Wednesday, April 17, 2024

#108 / A Terrifying Warning

 

 
Some disasters are real. Some threats are real, too, as opposed to those "Didn't Happen" threats featured in this blog yesterday. Click this "Didn't Happen" link if you missed it. 

As of Monday, March 4, 2024, the so-called "Smokehouse Creek Fire," also known as the "Texas Panhandle Fire," had burned through more than one million acres, "making it the largest wildfire in Texas history." 

I am quoting, above, from a Guest Essay by John Vailant, which appeared in the March 5, 2024, New York Times. Vailant has written a book entitled, Fire Weather: The Making of a Beast. His Guest Essay is titled, "The Fires Sweeping Across Texas Offer a Terrifying Warning."

What is it that makes this fire in Texas so particularly "terrifying," to use Vailant's word (it was only 15% contained at the time Vailant wrote his column)? 

Here is an extensive quotation from Vailant's essay, which I think helps us answer that inquiry: 

Two weeks before the Smokehouse fire broke out, I flew to Seattle from Cincinnati over a landscape I know well. But some 30,000 feet below my window seat lay a country I barely recognized: From the Ohio River to the Rockies, there was virtually no snow; the lakes and rivers were ice free. I’m a Northerner, and I know what February is supposed to look like, but what season was this? ....

For weeks now, red flag warnings from the National Weather Service indicating elevated wildfire risk have been popping up all across the United States — from the Mexican border to the Great Lakes and the Florida panhandle. Similar warnings are appearing north of the Canadian border. On Feb. 20, the province of Alberta, the Texas-size petro-state above Montana, declared the official start of fire season. This was nearly two weeks earlier than last year and six weeks earlier than a couple of decades ago. Alberta is in the heart of Canada, a famously cold and snowy place, and yet some 50 wildfires are burning across that province. In neighboring British Columbia, where I live, there are nearly 100 active fires, a number of which carried over from last year’s legendary fire season (the worst in Canadian history) linked to low snowpack and above-average winter temperatures.
It is alarming to see these fires and warnings in what is supposed to be the dead of winter, but fire, as distracting and dangerous as it is, is merely one symptom. What is happening in North America is not a regional aberration; it’s part of a global departure, what climate scientists call a phase shift. The past year has seen virtually every metric of planetary distress lurch into uncharted territory: sea surface temperature, air temperature, polar ice loss, fire intensity — you name it, it is off the charts. It was 72 degrees Fahrenheit in Wisconsin on Tuesday and 110 degrees Fahrenheit in Paraguay; large portions of the North Pacific and the South Atlantic are running more than five degrees Fahrenheit above normal....

Historically, it has been humans who have outpaced the natural world. From arrowheads to artificial intelligence, our species has progressed steadily faster than geologic time. But now, geologic time — specifically, atmospheric time and ocean time — is moving as fast as we are, in some cases faster — faster than technology, faster than history. The world we thought we knew is changing under our feet because we changed it (emphasis added).

The "Natural World," upon which all our human creations depend, is not only "changing." It has "changed." The fact that the changes have been caused by human activities doesn't offer comfort. It doesn't make them easier to deal with.

A climber on a steep slope might do something to dislodge a large stone - intentionally or unintentionally - and the fact that it was those human actions that have sent that boulder rolling down the mountain doesn't mean that a similar and equal human effort can stop the progress of what that human action began. And so it is with the process of global warming that has initiated our "climate crisis," with millions of acres burning into ash, with no snow in February, with all its other impacts ever clearer.

The very first thing to do, when coming into contact with a reality not formerly experienced, is to realize that it is a "reality," and that it is not going to "go away." The "boulder" of global warming is rolling down the hill. Let's not pretend it isn't rolling. Let's not pretend that human civilization is not at the bottom, and threatened with destruction.

Then, of course, there is a Step #2. Once we have admitted the reality of something we don't want to acknowledge, Step #2 is obvious: What are we going to do about it, now that we realize what's happening?

Before we can change what we are currently doing, and do what is necessary in the new situation in which we find ourselvess, we need to change our "minds." 

All of us alive today should not pretend that the boulder rolling down the mountain isn't really rolling! If we, the climbers who disslodged it, depend on the structures of civilization, below - structures of civilization that will be obliterated by what we have begun - we need to acknowledge the facts. 

After acknowledging the facts (Step #1), we need to realize that what we might have predicted for our lives is no longer any kind of reliable basis upon which we can plan for the future. We need to change our lives, give up whatever dreams and plans we might have had, premised on the idea (now so clearly erroneous) that we can assume that the world  into which we were born will continue to be the world in which we live - now, and in the future. 

As I have said beforeOctavia Butler's book, The Parable of the Sower, provides us with a metaphor that we can use to understand, and to react to our real situation. 

We need to "find some friends," bond with them, person to person, in real life, and turn our attention, with those friends we find, to what we need to do, now - what we should do in a world transformed by our actions in the past. 

What should we do? What can we do? What is going to be possible for us - not waiting for someone else to tell us what to do? What do we need to do, in this world in which we now realize we are living, with the bolder rolling down the mountain?

Find some friends. Give up your old plans, premised on the idea that things have not changed. Things have changed. Take it from John Vailant! 

Make a new plan, friends! Do some things you haven't done before; do them with the friends you find; do some things you think will help.


Tuesday, April 16, 2024

#107 / Didn't Happen!




A total solar eclipse, visible in different parts of the world, was expected to occur on April 8, 2024. And that total solar eclipse did, in fact, take place, just as promised and predicted. That happened!

What did not happen?

Well, for one thing, the "Rapture" did not happen. The poster that predicted that the Rapture would occur on April 8th turned out to be wrong. For those not familiar with the Rapture, click the link in the first line of this paragraph, and let Wikipedia provide you with some guidance: "The Rapture is an eschatological position held by some Christians, particularly those of American evangelicalism, consisting of an end-time event when all dead Christian believers will be resurrected and, joined with Christians who are still alive, together will rise "in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air."

Nice idea, I guess. It just didn't happen!

Other things didn't happen, either! For instance, right wing commentator Luke Rudkowski, who operates an internet-based organization called, "We Are Change," had a number of grim predictions (or what I think it is fair to call predictions), naming April 8th as a critical date. Here is a snapshot of a bulletin sent out by Rudowski just a few days in advance of that April 8th date. Note, by the way, that Rudowski is willing to sell you some gold, if you think that might provide some solace, or protection, as the upcoming threat looms: 


A former Mayor of Nevada City, California, whose name is Reinette Senum, maintains a blog, and has a podcast presence, and comments frequently on political topics. She was even more hysterical than Luke Rudkowski in her sense that April 8th was a day of potential doom. Here is some online evidence:


Senum also sent out an email bulletin (citing to the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," if you can believe that) and proclaimed the following: 

I urge you to pay close attention and be open-minded regarding the following information, as it contains a critical warning that could impact us all. While I typically focus on solutions rather than spreading fear, the current geopolitical climate demands our attention. Recent events, including the ongoing crisis in Gaza, the Baltimore Francis Scott Key bridge collapse (now being plucked out of the river by a crane with a "CIA history"), and the recent bombing of the Iranian embassy by Israeli forces suggest that we may be on the brink of a full-scale global conflict. 
The urgency is compounded by the predictive programming evident in Obama's disturbing film, 'Leave the World Behind,' coupled with recent signs pointing to a significant event aligning with the forthcoming solar eclipse on April 8th, as previously detailed in my substack post, HERE. While I am cautious about assigning specific dates to potential events, the convergence of unusual occurrences, such as states declaring States of Emergency and mobilization of the National Guard in preparation for the solar eclipse, raises serious concerns. 
More importantly, my interview with Matthew Tower, documentary filmmaker of Israel's Second 9/11: How Zionism Conquered JFK, America, and Palestine, is causing me to want to put out a severe warning to my friends, subscribers, and beyond.

It is largely good news, I guess, that none of these extraordinary predictions did, in fact, occur. They just didn't happen! 

My point, in today's blog post, is about how we should actually consider our position in the world. Are we powerless? Are we "doomed"? Is our fate, for good or ill, to be swept away by events too large for us to impact, and which probably derive from the exercise of some evil (or benign) power, international or cosmic in its character?

I would like to ask you to believe me when I tell you that the answer is, "No."

WE make the "Human World" in which we most immediately reside. To change the world, we need to take action, to do something new, something never ever tried before, perhaps. 

If we are waiting for either salvation or doom to be delivered by someone, or something, that is beyond us, we are wasting the time in which we, ourselves, might take action. Given the state of the world, wasting time is ill-advised. Time is limited, in case you haven't noticed. 

I have mentioned Michael Jackson before in this blog. As we encounter hysteria on all sides, as our genuine peril is either paralyzing us or driving us into bizarre actions and activities, let's remember those Michael Jackson lyrics: 

If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself, and then make a change. 

     - Michael Jackson, Man In The Mirror 

 


Monday, April 15, 2024

#106 / Private Equity And Making Politics Primary

  

 
Blackstone, Apollo, and a handful of other firms are demolishing the US economy for short-term gain, and leaving workers and communities in the wreckage.
- Chris Hedges 

If you click on the YouTube link you will find at the top of the page, you can listen to Chris Hedges talk with Gretchen Morgenson, author of These Are the Plunderers: How Private Equity Runs—and Wrecks—America

If you'd rather read than listen, which I, personally, find is quicker, you can click right here for a full transcript of Hedges' exploration, with Morgenson, of how "private equity" works. Hedges' title is, "How Private Equity Conquered America."

The main point, I think, is pretty much this one: When ongoing businesses are purchased by the "private equity" funds set up by wealthy individuals, the individuals whose "private equity" is what is used to buy up those businesses are not, at all, intersted in the businesses themselves. They don't, particularly, want to run a local newspaper, or an airline, or any other business.

All they are interested in is money. 

"Private equity," therefore, to put it another way, is not focused on maintaining the businesses it buys. Private equity is focused on making the most money possible. If fucking the business is what helps private equity do that, then that is exactly what private equity will do ("fucking" is being used as a technical term, here, by the way). Check out the condition of your local newspaper for an example!

But what about the "public good"?

Well, here is who is generally interested in the "public good": the public. 

The "public" means you and me, and we do not, of course, have the billions that "private equity" has. 

What do we have? Well, "we, the people" - and that's who "the public" is - have "politics."

Read all about it in Chris Hedges' transcript! Or, listen, if you'd rather do that than read. 

If you do follow along with Chris Hedges, reading or listening, either one, I think you will conclude that it's time for us to reassert the primacy of the public good. If you end up sharing my thoughts about that, and if you're "serious" about what it takes to have the public good prevail over private equity, you will realize that a whole lot of us are going to have to reorient our lives and make "politics" primary.

If significant numbers of us are not willing to do that, then we know what will happen to the public good. It will be (and we will be) ...... [insert the applicable technical term here, using the past tense].*


 
Image Credit:
https://youtu.be/shv9g-4xXww?si=YLw6r9q1Z60sd4cS
_______________________________________________
*Today, being "tax day," is probably a particularly appropriate day to make this point.

Sunday, April 14, 2024

#105 / A Guest Book Review

 


I have previously mentioned Hadley Vlahos and her book, which is titled, The In-Between. If you would like to read my earlier blog posting, here is where to click. In that earlier blog posting, I commented on a conversation between Vlahos and New York Times writer David Marchese. Marchese superintends the "Talk" column at The Times, which appears in the newspaper's Sunday magazine. The column focusing on Vlahos is dated October 21, 2023. 

Vlahos is a hospice nurse, but my earlier discussion didn't really center on that. My attention was captured by Vlahos' assertion that she often had the feeling, after one of her patients had passed, that the world was unaware of the significance of that person:

There’s this moment, especially when I’ve taken care of someone for a while, where I’ll walk outside and I’ll go fill up my gas tank and it’s like: Wow, all these other people have no idea that we just lost someone great. The world lost somebody great, and they’re getting a sandwich. 

I was struck by that observation because it is my belief that we very seldom understand the point that I think Vlahos was recognizing with her comment. We are all great. We are all important. We don't even recognize that ourselves. Generally, I cite to Ugo Betti when I say this. Click right here to find out something about Betti that you won't get from the Wikipedia article that I have linked to his name.

At any rate, my earlier blog posting didn't really get into Vlahos' work as a hospice nurse, nor did it much feature the main thrust of The In-Between, which is accurately described on its front cover as a book containing "unforgettable encounters during life's final moments." My lack of much comment on the central message of Vlahos' book, in that earlier blog posting, is of course quite natural, since I had not read the book. All I had read was just the Marchese column.

In what was a pleasaant surprise to me, someone who had read that earlier blog posting of mine went out and got Vlahos' book, and then sent me an email to thank me for drawing her attention to it. She did read the book (which I hadn't done), and the email I received constituted what might be thought of as a "guest book review." Here it is:

I want to tell you about the Hadley Vlahos book you mentioned in your blog #334 from last year, "We've Just Lost Someone Great."

I'd bought it online [and] I think it is a fantastic book, in part because it is accessible to most people who have any interest in death, whether natural or forced by circumstances to finally have to face it...  Actually I couldn't stop reading it, though I tried to manage it in measured doses like my antibiotics. I think she's done a profound thing in a very simple format, which normally would make me judge it to be less-than-serious....

So - I'll bet your local library has a copy, since it was on the NYT bestseller list for weeks last year, according to that NYT interview you referred to in your piece. I'd say it's an easy read ... but I don't think it's lightweight. I am profoundly grateful to you for bringing it to my/our attention!

Well, given this review, I thought I had better read Vlahos' book for myself! And so I did, and I am glad I did! I am writing this blog posting to say that I absolutely agree with my "guest book reviewer." Vlahos' book is, I think, profound.

Take it from me, or from my guest reviewer. Hadley Vlahos' book is recommended!

 
Image Credit:

Saturday, April 13, 2024

#104 / Taking A Charge




Pictured is Brandin Podziemski. He plays basketball for the Golden State Warriors, as even non-Warriors fans can probably surmise, just by consulting the picture above. Those who follow the Warriors, who may still be denominated "Authentic Fans," a term that was in vogue a few years ago, well know Podziemski, who is a "rookie" this season, but who has become one of the more valued players on the team.

The picture of Podziemski, sitting on the court, comes from an article published in the San Francisco Chronicle on December 27, 2023. The article is focused on a "skill," if you want to call it that, that few players possess, and that Podziemski brought to the team as a relatively recent arrival. 

The "skill" referenced is the willingness and ability of Podziemski to "take a charge." That means that the player is willing to embrace "the gritty, sometimes painful task of planting his body in front of an onrushing opponent," and letting that opponent knock him down, so that the opponent, instead of making a basket, and scoring two points "at the rim," as the announcers say, is called for a foul, instead. 

A player who is willing to put his body in the way of a basket-bound opponent, "taking a charge," can convert what is likely to be a two-point score for the opposition into an opportunity for the team whose self-sacrificing player has "taken the charge" to  make some points itself, and certainly to take possession of the ball.

Here is a little excerpt from the Chronicle article, commenting on this particular basketball talent: 

Brandin Podziemski, even as an eighth-grader, understood he needed to find ways to contribute to his team. He couldn’t jump especially high, so he embraced the gritty, sometimes painful task of planting his body in front of an onrushing opponent. 

That skill proved useful as Podziemski moved from St. John’s Northwestern Academies outside Milwaukee to college stops at Illinois and Santa Clara. And now, as a Golden State Warriors rookie, Podziemski remains accomplished at one of the game’s unglamorous, if valuable, chores. 

He leads the Warriors in charges taken this season with 12 (through Tuesday), including a dramatic, game-saving one Dec. 17 in Portland. Podziemski’s total ranks fourth in the NBA and tops all rookies. 

Brandin recalled a church-league coach extolling the value of taking charges. His dad traces the habit to eighth grade, when Brandin chose to pursue basketball over baseball. He started watching videos of college and pro players, including the European leagues, and diligently studied the nuances of the game.

“I think that really took off when he went to military school,” John Podziemski said. “His school credo was, ‘You’re only as strong as your weakest link.’ Brandin seemed to think if he couldn’t go up in the air to block every shot, then he could take a charge.”

It became a small snapshot of a wider St. John’s philosophy stressing team over individual. Podziemski came to realize if he was deficient in one area, such as pure athleticism, there was no point in lamenting his shortcoming (emphasis added).

The phrase that captured my attention, as I read The Chronicle story about Podziemski, was the phrase I have highlighted, above: "team over individual." In fact, that "team over individual" philosophy is the essence of what I celebrated as "Warriors Ball" in that blog posting I referenced earlier, and in this one, too

That approach has worked for the Warriors. 

I contend that it works for all of us, when we practice it in the context of the way we configure our politics, society, and economy. 

Why don't we give it a try? We still have lots of time left in 2024 to consider how to accomplish that, and to celebrate our connections, not our individualism!


 
Image Credit:

Friday, April 12, 2024

#103 / Let It Be A Tale




Refaat Alareer is pictured above. Peoples Dispatch identifies him as an "internationally beloved academic, poet, and activist." Wikipedia tells us that "Alareer was killed [on December 6, 2023], in an Israeli airstrike in northern Gaza, along with his brother, brother's son, sister, and her three children, during the 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip." 

Wikipedia also notes that the Euro-Med Monitor released a statement saying that Alareer was apparently deliberately targeted, "surgically bombed out of the entire building," with his death having been preceeded by "death threats that Refaat received online and by phone from Israeli accounts."

Alareer left behind a poem, which I am reprinting in full at the end of this blog posting. His poem, "If I Must Die," was referenced in a New York Times' editorial statement published on April 8, 2024. Paula Chakravartty and Vaasuki Nesiah, authors of that statement in The Times, are both professors at New York University. In their statement in The Times, they were objecting to the discipline imposed by the university's administration against students who read Alareer's poem at a poetry reading held during the Spring semester, this year.

In the hard copy version I read on the morning of April 8th, the Chakravartty-Nesiah column was titled, "Political Dissent Is Under Attack on Campus." Online, the column was titled as follows: "Is This The End of Academic Freedom?"

The concerns that Chakravartty and Nesiah have raised about academic freedom are justified. But even more importantly - at least, so I think - Alareer's poem raises an even more important question for all of us, as citizens of the United States, and as those who are ultimately responsible for what our country does. Protests sweeping the country, objecting the United States' military contribution to what Israel is doing in Gaza, are making a point. The kind of military destruction that Israel has imposed on Gaza, accompanied by the tens of thousands of deaths of innocent people, is insupportable; it is wrong, and the United States, not Israel alone, bears a significant share of the responsibility, having furnished the means for all that death.

"Death" is no adequate solution for any problem we encounter in life. As I said recently, in another blog posting, "leadership" does not require "killing people." 

Alareer wanted his death to inspire "A Tale" a story full of hope. But what we have been seeing is not that. What we are witnessing is an "old story," and it is time for all of us to begin telling a different one. This is not the time to “pick a side,” and assign blame, or to pronounce approval.  Killing others as a way to confront the real problems we face in this life brings no hope now - nor ever really did. Such assignments of blame and approval are an “old story,” the “traditional story,” the story we always seem to tell ourselves. As I have said in another past blog posting, we should pay attention to a statement popularly attributed to Mahatma Gandhi: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." 

What we have been witnessing, I think is not what Refaat Alareer so fervently wished for. Instead of the "Tale" that he wanted us to tell, we are still hearing, on repeat, that story that has been told for so long, and that has been repeated so often. That story that we continue to hear, that "old story," told so often, has documented our failure, time after time, to make death any kind of satisfactory and efficacious solution to the problems we confront in life.

So, as we listen to that "old story" being told again, let us truly understand it. 

Then.... we do need to be sure that we truly understand it. 

And then.... when we do. 

I hope you do. 

Let us tell a different story, starting now. 

Let it be a tale!

oooOOOooo

“IF I MUST DIE”
     - Refaat Alareer

If I must die,
you must live
to tell my story
to sell my things
to buy a piece of cloth
and some strings,
(make it white with a long tail)
so that a child, somewhere in Gaza
while looking heaven in the eye
awaiting his dad who left in a blaze—
and bid no one farewell
not even to his flesh
not even to himself—
sees the kite, my kite you made, flying up above
and thinks for a moment an angel is there
bringing back love
If I must die
let it bring hope
let it be a tale