Friday, February 16, 2018

How The Second Amendment Wrecked The Republic

Once upon a time—in the late 18th century, actually—a group of farmers, merchants and amateur philosophers decided to go into business together, hoping thereby to pursue happiness and profit. They adopted the name USA Inc. and set about building a beautiful new structure—named The Republic—to house their ambitious operations.

Recognizing that the most vital element of this edifice would be a strong, durable foundation, the so-called Framers deliberated mightily about what ingredients should be included in the foundational concrete. Once they had agreed on the desirable constituents for their mixture (a recipe they proudly nicknamed “novus ordo seclorum,”) they were ready to pour and cure the foundation of The Republic.

One special ingredient in the agreed-upon constitutional concrete was the “second amendment”—an additive intended to provide greater strength and durability to the foundation (now called The Constitution) and in particular to make the concrete’s surface harder and more resistant to attacks from intruders.

Luckily, there weren’t many intruders and, for a while, the foundation held—even when the superstructure occasionally frayed or fissured. Over time, in fact, The Republic grew extensively, adding rooms, stories, gilded spires—all sustained by the original, second-amendment-infused foundation.

But slowly, things began to change. Cracks began to appear. Parts of the The Constitution began to crumble. Whatever was the problem? Well, upon investigation, researchers discovered that the second-amendment additive, so good at hardening the surface, was, beneath the surface, interacting destructively with the chemistry of the underlying bedrock (i.e., objective real-world context) to which the foundation was anchored but with which, thanks to the toxic second-amendment, it was increasingly incompatible. Thus, the very ingredient intended to strengthen the foundation was, in fact, slowly but surely, weakening it—threatening, over time, to bring the whole magnificent edifice of The Republic tumbling down.

Whatever could be done to remedy this lamentable situation? Scholars and scientists proposed several procedures which might (though there was no absolute guarantee) successfully extract or neutralize all or substantial portions of the second-amendment contamination, thereby restoring the foundation and shoring up The Republic.

But, alas, the flaccid descendants of The Framers (NRA-bots) had grown too accustomed to the good old second-amendment-riddled foundation. How, they asked themselves, could they ever pursue profit and happiness if they were obliged to walk upon surfaces not armored with second-amendment hardness? Surely the second-amendment admixture could not be blamed for those cracks and crumbly spots. No extraction! No neutralization! No changing the constitutional make-up of the venerable floor.

So, instead, the ruling NRA-bots directed their attention and their wrath toward the ultimate boogeyman—the real world bedrock—reality. And they concluded resoundingly that their crumbling foundation was the bedrock’s fault (a conspiracy, really), that any attempt to make the foundation of The Republic constitutionally compatible with Reality Bedrock would be most perturbing, and that it was, in self-evident consequence, UP TO THE BEDROCK TO CHANGE.

But the bedrock was unmoved. It did not change. And The Republic fell. So it goes.

Sunday, January 28, 2018

Shithole Lemonade

I’m amused by pundits who Twitter and titter about the “threat” of Trump being “blackmailed.” How can you “blackmail” a cult leader who, by his own assessment, could shoot someone dead in the middle of Fifth Avenue and still lose no support from the faithful?Even if the Russians—or anyone—produced indisputable evidence of criminal behavior—political, financial or sexual—Trump’s votaries (think Sarah Sanders) would simply declare these crimes heroic defenses of religious freedom and The American Way of Life. And they could quite possibly succeed in re-electing him on that platform. This is why I think that Trump is not seriously threatened by the Mueller investigation. Of course, he’d like it to go away (so he could devote more of his precious executive time to “deal-making”), but if the shit DOES hit the fan, he will just use it to make shithole lemonade. And proceed to sell the stuff as a patriotic nectar. That’s his modus operandi—and that’s how cults work.😣

Saturday, November 11, 2017

Right Nuts and Left Tits

This is the problem: the Second Amendment itself--and the cultural assumptions that underly this constitutional juggernaut.

Most citizens, of most countries, do not "assume" that they are entitled, by the mere circumstances of their birth, to possess and employ lethal firearms. But Americans DO so assume.

Americans, unlike, say, citizens of Japan or Britain or France or Sweden, grow up thinking that their authorization to bear arms is inborn and inalienable--a "natural" right--accorded them by the universe or by what Jefferson sneakily (and deceptively) called Nature's God. Any attempt to deny, limit, restrict or control that "right" is thus considered a threat to an individual's very identity as a free American, indeed as an autonomous human being.

In most other countries, though, possessing a gun is viewed as a privilege or a responsibility accorded to an individual based upon that individual's particular needs, qualifications and training--a privilege not given lightly and granted only to those who demonstrate convincingly that their use of such weapons would be useful or (at least) inoffensive to the common good. Granted by whom? By the central government whose sacred duty it is to "provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare." In such countries, that's what the GOVERNMENT does--not what individual gun-toters do.

A complete reversal of the American attitude (despite the language of the Preamble to the Constitution).

Of course, this is not a new idea. My friends in Europe have often expressed their astonishment that Americans regard gun rights as something as integral to one's selfhood as, say, a right nut or a left tit. It always surprises me, though, that Americans themselves do not recognize, indeed refuse to recognize, how completely "out of it" they are. My God, isn't it clear that, in the 21st century, constitution writers possessed of even a bare minimum of rationality would NEVER include in their foundational document any provision as threatening to "domestic tranquility" as the Second Amendment?

Obviously, I believe that our outdated 18th century assumption is wrongheaded--and that our gun-toting culture is both self-defeating and viciously cyclical (we buy guns to protect ourselves from others who buy guns to protect themselves from others who...well, you see the pattern). However, I also believe that any wimpy attempt at "modest" control--better vetting, no assault guns, yada yada.--will FAIL. As long as guns OF ANY KIND are widely available and regarded as a natural "right," nothing substantive will change. Nothing, nothing, nothing.

It is my belief that only a complete about-face in our fundamental assumptions--comparable to the moral revolution settled (at least officially) by the Civil War and enshrined in the post-Civil War amendments--can procure a safer, saner, commonwealth. In short, the Second Amendment must be REPEALED and gun possession must be seriously limited/regulated (as in Japan or the UK).  No one, anywhere, should be assumed to have a natural or constitutional "right" to bear arms.

Alas, I doubt that we Americans have any REAL will to change our ingrained thinking so radically. The fearsome toll of gun violence shocks us, yes (sincerely), but still we cannot bring ourselves to espouse anti-Amendment "blasphemy" or take anti-Amendment stands. Instead, in response to the havoc wreaked by the un-infringed bearing of arms, we cling vacuously to moments of silence followed by...thoughts and prayers. It's pathetic, and we know it. But give up our guns? My God, they're like our right nut and left tit!

Saturday, November 4, 2017

Revival of the Fittest

All the current revelations of sexual wrongdoings and/ or repentance therefrom bear a sort of queasy resemblance to the over-heated “altar calls” at the climax (ahem) of revival meetings. On the one hand, I am encouraged that the national “congregation” is suddenly clamoring to confess both its frequent misdeeds and its general complicity in them. On the other hand, I am skeptical that our frenzied coming-to-Jesus will have any lasting effect on the sex-power drive of alpha males. There will be temporary teeth-gnashing and breast-beating, of course, but the history of human phallocentrism suggests that any “resolve to sin no more” is likely to be short-lived. As a species, we are capable of CONCEPTUALIZING a better, more self-disciplined, less brutish rapport between the sexes. Indeed, certain individuals—perhaps even increasing numbers of them—may be successful in living in accordance with such ideals (and this, too, is modestly encouraging). But overall, globally, how well do we do? Certainly nothing to shout “hallelujah” about—not very loudly anyway.  Because, well, recidivism, thy name is alpha male. And so, fellow dreamers, until we meet again at our culture’s next revival meeting...


Saturday, July 8, 2017

Land of the Free (If You've Got a Pot to Piss In)

Well, after a two-week trip to Europe, here I am back in the USA--you know, the country that's supposedly running like a fine-tuned machine. (Haha.) 

I suppose I should be grateful that I have escaped what right-wingers like Rand Paul call "the socialist gulag" of France--that bastion of misguided "wealth redistribution"--where two of my friends have recently had intensive medical procedures conducted by top specialists and paid for by perhaps the finest (universal) healthcare system in the world; where trains are clean, frequent and on-time; where trash is collected daily and streets are washed continually; where highways are maintained and pothole-free; where a weekly pass for transport anywhere within the Parisian agglomeration (subway, buses, suburban trains) costs only €22.50; where everyone gets at least a month of paid vacation; where college education is essentially free; and where (this is the best part) even the most extreme right-wingers accept these policies as appropriate and legitimate. 

OK, there are also problems: high unemployment, complicated and inflexible work rules, racial and religious tensions, poor assimilation of immigrants. But, Jesus! toute proportion gardée, France is considerably more fine-tuned (in both senses of the word "fine") than DJT's mean and dysfunctional America. 

Surely, then, we need to crawl out from under our selfish, reactionary rock. "We all do better when we all do better," said the late Paul Wellstone--in a formula that infuriates both extremes of the right wing (the super-rich plutocrats and the no-pot-to-piss-in wannabes). Still, the idea is sound: even Henry Ford realized that he, too, would do better if his workers could afford to buy his cars. 

So, in the final analysis, I conclude once again--as I always do upon returning to the "land of the free" (but only if you already have your pot to piss in): we could use a good dose of French-style equality and fraternity to temper our obsession with untrammeled (and therefore brutal) liberty.

Monday, May 29, 2017

Kushner the Keystone Kop

"President" Trump and his retainers do almost NOTHING according to purposeful, outcome-based planning. Everything in this administration "just happens," and like Topsy, "just grows," irrespective of anything else. I find it difficult, therefore, to believe that Jared Kushner or anyone else in that clutch of latter-day Keystone Kops had any conscious intention of doing, well, much of anything really consequential with the Russians. It was all just ad-libbed game-playing by political dilettantes. AKA, bullshit.

And as we know, bullshit action, like bullshit talk, is simply made up on the spur of the moment for no purpose other than to "win" the moment and move on to another moment requiring its own bullshit improvisation, probably inconsistent with anything previously cooked up. Moment to moment to moment muddling--until, whoops! the muddlers are crushed between two streetcars they somehow didn't notice careening toward them. In all this, clearly, there is no overarching plan or principle or internal logic. It's movement with neither purpose nor destination. 

So I suspect that Kushner (perhaps to please the Prez) merely committed Keystone-Kops stupidity--or at worst, frat-boy mischief. I doubt that he had/has either the intellectual heft or the intestinal fortitude to effect any genuine collusion with Russia's big spooks. But he did kinda drive off a PR cliff, didn't he? Evidently, behind that high Harvard forehead, snoozes the brain of a bonafide klutz. 

Which leads us to ask: will the favored son-in-law fall into the sea or will he, by dint of more muddling, succeed in pulling himself back up to terra (not so) firma? Stay tuned for the next episode, folks. It's entitled "Jared Jiggles the Jalopy."

Friday, May 26, 2017

NATO Tea Party With Trump

I suspect that Trump and the majority of Americans think thusly about foreign relations: "It is America's manifest destiny and sacred duty to control (er, "protect") the rest of the world (foreigners certainly can't be trusted to do it themselves--they might not even be able to identify the proper "enemy") but, by jingo, we expect the rest of the world to PAY for this benevolent management we're providing. Like Mexico and that wall we're gonna build down there for their own good. Enough unfair exploitation of American taxpayers! No more free military occupation! Pay up, you moochers!"

Throughout history, this has generally been the prevailing empire's argument--and justification--for demanding financial "compensation" from its subject peoples. The British did this in 18th century North America in an effort to exact some payment for the "protection" they had provided the cheapskate  colonies in the French and Indian (Seven Years') War. The demand was probably legitimate: the redcoats HAD after all kept out the poxy French--and the war had been costly.

Nonetheless, the methods employed (taxes levied from London with no colonial input) were ill-conceived, ill-executed, and shit! they just pissed everybody off so bad! Consequently, in that instance at least, the subject people not only refused to pay--but they tossed the arrogant Imperials out on their rosy, red arses. Achtung! therefore, Mr. Trump, lest the NATO leaders grow so angered by YOUR methods that they decide to call your bluff and, following the example set back in 18th century Boston, dump you (and America) unceremoniously into the sea--like a fat bag of Oolong.

That would probably get you very bad ratings.