Speaker of the Rich Paul Ryan has finally released a statement on the new "healthcare" bill. Which is really not so much a healthcare bill as it is federally sanctioned mass murder of everyone that Republicans deem undesirable: women, the poor, communities of color, the mentally ill, and the very sick and disabled. The question so many have been asking -- and rightly so -- is how people who purport to be in favor of "family values" and the tenets of Christianity can take a gigantic steaming dump on everything Jesus ever taught. Your answer is an idea that dates all the way back from the Calvinist bullshit of the Middle Ages. This is how far Republicans want to turn back the clock.
In the Calvinist view, disease and illness and injury are just physical manifestations of sin. If you are chosen by God, bad shit will never happen to you; if you're not worthy, welp, sucks to be you don't it? The current Evangelical support of legislation that rewards the rich and punishes the poor is centered around this. In their view, it's only natural that we reward God's "chosen people" so they'll put in a good word for us. Everyone else who is poor and sick? They've already been rejected by God, so who cares about them anyway?
If this sounds like a terrible way to view the world, then congratulations. You're not a sociopath.
Republicans love the fuck out of this sentiment because it absolves them of having to do anything to fix the country's problems, literally all of which go back to poverty. Crime? Drugs? Violence? All directly tied to poverty. Because when people are poor, they get scared. When they get scared, they get desperate. And desperate people do drastic shit in order to survive.
Abortion? Most abortions that occur are done because the mother can't afford to care for a baby, or even the cost of giving birth (bare minimum with no complications, childbirth costs around $30K; abortion is just under $1,000 at its highest). In some professions, she risks being fired from her job just because she's pregnant (it's been illegal since 1978, but it still happens with alarming frequency, and if you can't afford a child, you sure as hell can't afford a good lawyer).
Poverty is also a direct cause of ill health itself. Healthy, nutritious food is expensive. The highly processed food that poor people can afford is loaded with salt, sugar, fat and empty calories (calories that provide no or very few nutrients). Being able to cook requires energy and free time that many working poor families don't have. On top of that, jobs with shitty pay tend to be physically demanding (retail, food service, etc.), and because the pay is awful, employees need to work longer shifts or multiple jobs to buy even the shittiest food. This doesn't even factor stress into the equation, or urban food deserts where there's no grocery stores for miles and your only options are fast food and bodegas (which overwhelmingly sell the aforementioned highly-processed crap food).
For Republicans, the problem is that fixing this mess would require going back to the income tax levels of the mid-20th century, where top-earners paid around 70%, as well as building stronger unions and better regulation of the financial sector to prevent the kinds of market collapses we saw from the 1970s onward. And that, of course, means listening to the people rather than their campaign donors, who tend to skew wealthy as fuck and, like Thorin at the end of The Hobbit, don't want to part with a single coin.
It would be much more beneficial to them if all us pesky poor folk were kept in a highly efficient queue of high birth and death rates, so we could continue to work shitty service jobs for shitty pay until we drop dead of heart attacks and get replaced by the next desperate shmoe. And the easiest way to do that? Restrict abortion and birth control such that the rights to them are merely ceremonial in order to force the birthrate to go up, and gut healthcare for the working classes so we die faster.
That's where the American Health Care Act comes in.
Immediately, you should notice three words missing from the bill's title compared to the ACA: "patient protection" and "affordable." This is not an accident; this bill is not intended to protect patients, nor is it intended to make healthcare affordable in any way unless you're young, rich and already healthy. In other words, already chosen by God, and fuck the rest of us.
It's the same Victorian-era bullshit of regarding wealth itself to be a virtue. If you're rich, then you're obviously a shrewd and virtuous person. If you're poor, it's because you obviously did something awful or stupid, so why should you get any sympathy?
This is what lets hard-right God-fearing Christians sleep at night while they vote to slash the safety net for the country's most vulnerable. All that stuff about charity and helping your neighbor? That only goes for people who already have God's favor.
This is one of the biggest reasons I walked away from Christianity in my college years and didn't look back (besides figuring out I was gay). The idea of a "chosen" people never sat well with me, because the next logical step is to dismiss those not "chosen" as deserving of their fate. I'm not saying all Christians do this, not by a longshot; there are many wonderful churches and Christian charities that do a lot of good in the world. But ignoring individual churches who do good things for a minute? All the major players in the Bible who came after Christ promoted this idea of chosen vs. damned, and to defer to God's word (or what people assumed was God's word) rather than trying to understand things on your own. I found myself unable to maintain my faith in a system that just about required me to leave my empathy and critical thinking at the door.
But this is exactly the thought process that has brought us to this point. And it's not just limited to Evangelical fundie whacknuts. Everyone who voted for Trump did so for one reason and one reason alone, regardless of the language they couched their decision in: he is a straight, white, rich cisman, the epitome of privilege, and therefore "chosen." If they vote for him, they can be "chosen" as well.
Only now, with the very real threat of shredding healthcare to a point even worse than it was before the Affordable Care Act, do they realize what "chosen" really means: everyone else is damned.
Statcounter
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
You Can't Compromise With Fear
Normally, I like Jim Wright. But as I've learned over the years, even he suffers from the same problem that every white guy does: since he's not really going to lose much in Trump's America, he feels he has the authority to tell progressives how to win.
His entire post, linked above, is the ramblings of a guy so steeped in his own privilege he's turned the water into milk.
The lede is the only good part of it. But then he starts screaming at fellow liberals to "turn the red sea purple" by "compromising with fear." I very calmly challenged him on Twitter earlier today to explain just how on earth we're supposed to do that, and got blocked for my trouble.
Because, as I finally got him to admit in that thread, you can't compromise with fear.
Not the kind of fear we're dealing with, at any rate. When a child comes to you in the middle of the night scared of monsters under his bed? Your natural instinct is to lift the bedskirt and show him there are no monsters. Maybe check the closet with a flashlight just to go the extra mile. But then the child turns to you and says "no, there really are monsters, they're just invisible so of course you can't see them!" At that point, the child's fear can no longer be compromised with, because he's going to make up reasons to stay afraid.
Trump voters are that child. The monsters under their bed are literally everyone and everything else.
In his post, Jim Wright suggests reaching out to these fearful people instead of dismissing them, by going to churches and assuring them they won't have to marry a gay couple in their house of worship.
I literally laughed out loud reading that, because:
1) why the holy fuck would they believe a word "Crooked Hillary" says? These are the same people chanting "lock her up!"
2) to say that their fear is having to marry a gay couple in their church is to treat it with far more rationality and credibility than it deserves. They don't actually give a shit about that. They don't want gay couples getting married, period. Not in their church, not in any church, not in their courthouses, not in their city, not in their state, not in their country.
The part Mr. Wright doesn't seem to grasp is that compromising with them in any way is compromising with hatred. This is the same guy who was literally targeted by Neo-Nazis, but can't seem to understand that their fear is based on hatred. It's built directly on top of it. Hatred is the foundation of everything conservatives do. They fear change because they hate having to deal with anything different than themselves.
As far as blaming liberals for not showing up at the polls? That is a valid point. At least for privileged white liberals like himself. The problem is that in 2013, the Supreme Court ruled on Shelby County v. Holder in a 5-4 decision that de-fanged the Voting Rights Act. Afterward, we saw a veritable orgy of voter suppression legislation passed.
In key states like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan -- the states which cost Hillary the Electoral College -- many liberals, progressives and moderate conservatives who might've shown up to vote for Hillary were turned away and not permitted to cast a ballot. This is also not even counting the fact that communities of color (who vote largely Democrat) suffer disproportionately high rates of incarceration for non-violent felonies, which in turn means they are legally barred from voting.
Many liberals and progressives didn't show up for the 2014 midterms and 2016 election not because they didn't want to, but because they weren't allowed. Maybe smug white guys with the same privilege Jim Wright has decided to sit it out, largely because of their privilege. But to lump everyone else in with them is not just misleading, but insulting.
If you want to turn the red sea purple? Don't waste your time compromising with fear. Don't lose sleep trying to convince an irrationally scared child to go to bed when he's going to have far more reasons not to than you can keep up with.
You can't dismiss all of their concerns, because they do have valid ones. Poverty, drug use and failing health are just as bad in rural areas as they are in urban, but without any of the (still inadequate) support centers that city dwellers have (soup kitchens, shelters, sliding-scale clinics, etc.). But you can most definitely dismiss their fear, when that fear has equal parts jack and shit to do with their concerns.
You want to mitigate the damage Trump can do? You need to put the pressure on your Congresscritters. The people who put shit on Trump's desk to sign. They're already too scared to hold town halls. Don't let that stop you. Flood their inboxes. Flood their phones. Flood their mailbags. Hold protests. Stop traffic.
Make them so pants-shittingly terrified of losing their seats in 2018 that they'll have no choice but to break with the party line for self-preservation. Force them to be the check on Trump, with the threat that if they won't, you'll elect someone else who will.
Don't compromise with fear, and don't negotiate with terrorists. Resist.
His entire post, linked above, is the ramblings of a guy so steeped in his own privilege he's turned the water into milk.
The lede is the only good part of it. But then he starts screaming at fellow liberals to "turn the red sea purple" by "compromising with fear." I very calmly challenged him on Twitter earlier today to explain just how on earth we're supposed to do that, and got blocked for my trouble.
Because, as I finally got him to admit in that thread, you can't compromise with fear.
Not the kind of fear we're dealing with, at any rate. When a child comes to you in the middle of the night scared of monsters under his bed? Your natural instinct is to lift the bedskirt and show him there are no monsters. Maybe check the closet with a flashlight just to go the extra mile. But then the child turns to you and says "no, there really are monsters, they're just invisible so of course you can't see them!" At that point, the child's fear can no longer be compromised with, because he's going to make up reasons to stay afraid.
Trump voters are that child. The monsters under their bed are literally everyone and everything else.
In his post, Jim Wright suggests reaching out to these fearful people instead of dismissing them, by going to churches and assuring them they won't have to marry a gay couple in their house of worship.
I literally laughed out loud reading that, because:
1) why the holy fuck would they believe a word "Crooked Hillary" says? These are the same people chanting "lock her up!"
2) to say that their fear is having to marry a gay couple in their church is to treat it with far more rationality and credibility than it deserves. They don't actually give a shit about that. They don't want gay couples getting married, period. Not in their church, not in any church, not in their courthouses, not in their city, not in their state, not in their country.
The part Mr. Wright doesn't seem to grasp is that compromising with them in any way is compromising with hatred. This is the same guy who was literally targeted by Neo-Nazis, but can't seem to understand that their fear is based on hatred. It's built directly on top of it. Hatred is the foundation of everything conservatives do. They fear change because they hate having to deal with anything different than themselves.
As far as blaming liberals for not showing up at the polls? That is a valid point. At least for privileged white liberals like himself. The problem is that in 2013, the Supreme Court ruled on Shelby County v. Holder in a 5-4 decision that de-fanged the Voting Rights Act. Afterward, we saw a veritable orgy of voter suppression legislation passed.
In key states like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan -- the states which cost Hillary the Electoral College -- many liberals, progressives and moderate conservatives who might've shown up to vote for Hillary were turned away and not permitted to cast a ballot. This is also not even counting the fact that communities of color (who vote largely Democrat) suffer disproportionately high rates of incarceration for non-violent felonies, which in turn means they are legally barred from voting.
Many liberals and progressives didn't show up for the 2014 midterms and 2016 election not because they didn't want to, but because they weren't allowed. Maybe smug white guys with the same privilege Jim Wright has decided to sit it out, largely because of their privilege. But to lump everyone else in with them is not just misleading, but insulting.
If you want to turn the red sea purple? Don't waste your time compromising with fear. Don't lose sleep trying to convince an irrationally scared child to go to bed when he's going to have far more reasons not to than you can keep up with.
You can't dismiss all of their concerns, because they do have valid ones. Poverty, drug use and failing health are just as bad in rural areas as they are in urban, but without any of the (still inadequate) support centers that city dwellers have (soup kitchens, shelters, sliding-scale clinics, etc.). But you can most definitely dismiss their fear, when that fear has equal parts jack and shit to do with their concerns.
You want to mitigate the damage Trump can do? You need to put the pressure on your Congresscritters. The people who put shit on Trump's desk to sign. They're already too scared to hold town halls. Don't let that stop you. Flood their inboxes. Flood their phones. Flood their mailbags. Hold protests. Stop traffic.
Make them so pants-shittingly terrified of losing their seats in 2018 that they'll have no choice but to break with the party line for self-preservation. Force them to be the check on Trump, with the threat that if they won't, you'll elect someone else who will.
Don't compromise with fear, and don't negotiate with terrorists. Resist.
Monday, February 27, 2017
To Err Is Human, To Forgive Is Dangerous If They're Not Sorry
When I was somewhere between kindergarten and third grade, I vaguely remember some incident where the teacher made a kid apologize to me. She then turned to me and said "now what do you say?" When I didn't answer she said "you're supposed to say 'you're forgiven.'"
I looked at her and said "But I don't forgive him, because he's not sorry. He's just saying it because you made him." I'll never forget the look on the teacher's face. It was like somebody had clued her in to a part of the human psyche she'd either forgotten about or had never acknowledged. The script she was used to wasn't being followed. The motions she'd been conditioned to go through were being rejected. All of a sudden, she kind of stood there and questioned reality as she knew it.
This was my first clue that forgiveness is as much a part of the bullshit children get spoonfed by their adult caretakers as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. It's an arbitrary social convention that everyone follows, but they have no clue why. Other than "it's rude if you don't." It's a rehearsed interaction much the same way that pleasantries and small-talk are. Go off-script? Everyone loses their minds.
As children, we're conditioned that "you're forgiven" is simply the right response to "I'm sorry." And you say you're sorry when you do something bad so that the other person says "you're forgiven" and it's all forgotten about.
It's a ridiculous kindergarten ritual that kids are taught, and after a while the words themselves cease to have any meaning beyond "this is what you say because it's what you've been taught to say." Sorta like those Berlitz phrasebooks. Only you're learning how to phone it in instead of how to hail a taxi in Spanish.
As a result, I've found people by and large view forgiveness as something they're entitled to just for saying they're sorry. Hell, we even call these rehearsed phrases "magic words." You speak them and they get you what you want. So all too often, people will treat them as such. They won't apologize out of genuine remorse, but only because they're expected to. And in return, they expect to be forgiven.
People in these situations don't deserve your forgiveness.
Because what forgiveness is, is granting absolution. Declaring whatever incident that happened "water under the bridge" and returning your relationship to the status quo. This works when someone is genuinely remorseful, because they're going to remember what they did to upset you and not do it again, because they care about not hurting you. The status quo actually means something to them.
But when the person doesn't have genuine remorse? When they're not sorry for what they did, just that they got caught and you're angry? Forgiveness is worse than wasted on these people. Forgiving someone who isn't really sorry rewards their behavior. It effectively tells them they can hurt you, but as long as they say the magic words, there will be no lasting consequences.
That? Is a very dangerous thing to teach someone.
And this doesn't even get into situations of abuse. Far too many therapists and counselors see forgiveness as a necessary step in the healing process, and impart upon their patients the idea that they will never truly heal until they forgive their abuser (whether they get an apology or not). The thing is, not everyone can do this. Even the kindest and most empathic person has limits. And trying to force a person who has already suffered rank abuse over their limit -- trying force them through cajoling and coercion to forgive someone they simply can't -- is going to do nothing but re-traumatize them. They're going to see themselves as a failure all over again.
You are not, under any circumstances, obligated to forgive. Just like the opposite of hatred isn't love, but indifference, the opposite of a grudge is not forgiveness; it's release. You can leave the anger and the hurt behind by simply getting to the point of not giving a shit anymore.
The decision to forgive is as personal as the decision to have sex. If you do decide to do it, make sure it's because you want to and not because you feel it's expected. Going through the motions is just as bad in both scenarios.
I looked at her and said "But I don't forgive him, because he's not sorry. He's just saying it because you made him." I'll never forget the look on the teacher's face. It was like somebody had clued her in to a part of the human psyche she'd either forgotten about or had never acknowledged. The script she was used to wasn't being followed. The motions she'd been conditioned to go through were being rejected. All of a sudden, she kind of stood there and questioned reality as she knew it.
This was my first clue that forgiveness is as much a part of the bullshit children get spoonfed by their adult caretakers as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. It's an arbitrary social convention that everyone follows, but they have no clue why. Other than "it's rude if you don't." It's a rehearsed interaction much the same way that pleasantries and small-talk are. Go off-script? Everyone loses their minds.
As children, we're conditioned that "you're forgiven" is simply the right response to "I'm sorry." And you say you're sorry when you do something bad so that the other person says "you're forgiven" and it's all forgotten about.
It's a ridiculous kindergarten ritual that kids are taught, and after a while the words themselves cease to have any meaning beyond "this is what you say because it's what you've been taught to say." Sorta like those Berlitz phrasebooks. Only you're learning how to phone it in instead of how to hail a taxi in Spanish.
As a result, I've found people by and large view forgiveness as something they're entitled to just for saying they're sorry. Hell, we even call these rehearsed phrases "magic words." You speak them and they get you what you want. So all too often, people will treat them as such. They won't apologize out of genuine remorse, but only because they're expected to. And in return, they expect to be forgiven.
People in these situations don't deserve your forgiveness.
Because what forgiveness is, is granting absolution. Declaring whatever incident that happened "water under the bridge" and returning your relationship to the status quo. This works when someone is genuinely remorseful, because they're going to remember what they did to upset you and not do it again, because they care about not hurting you. The status quo actually means something to them.
But when the person doesn't have genuine remorse? When they're not sorry for what they did, just that they got caught and you're angry? Forgiveness is worse than wasted on these people. Forgiving someone who isn't really sorry rewards their behavior. It effectively tells them they can hurt you, but as long as they say the magic words, there will be no lasting consequences.
That? Is a very dangerous thing to teach someone.
And this doesn't even get into situations of abuse. Far too many therapists and counselors see forgiveness as a necessary step in the healing process, and impart upon their patients the idea that they will never truly heal until they forgive their abuser (whether they get an apology or not). The thing is, not everyone can do this. Even the kindest and most empathic person has limits. And trying to force a person who has already suffered rank abuse over their limit -- trying force them through cajoling and coercion to forgive someone they simply can't -- is going to do nothing but re-traumatize them. They're going to see themselves as a failure all over again.
You are not, under any circumstances, obligated to forgive. Just like the opposite of hatred isn't love, but indifference, the opposite of a grudge is not forgiveness; it's release. You can leave the anger and the hurt behind by simply getting to the point of not giving a shit anymore.
The decision to forgive is as personal as the decision to have sex. If you do decide to do it, make sure it's because you want to and not because you feel it's expected. Going through the motions is just as bad in both scenarios.
Monday, February 13, 2017
Don't Fear Trump; Fear His Allies
By now, three weeks into Trump's ridiculous shitshow of a presidency, I think there are two glaringly obvious things we need to digest as a country:
1) Resistance is working. The marches, the deluge of calls from constituents, it's working. Betsy DeVos was only confirmed by a tie-breaking vote from the Vice-President because two Republican Senators voted against her. Something that has literally never happened before in a cabinet confirmation.
2) Donald Trump is not who we should be looking at as the real danger. It's the people he's surrounded himself with.
Trump is reminiscent of Poo-Bah from Gilbert and Sullivan's The Mikado. Pompous, narcissistic, strutting around like the peacock with the biggest feathers and bestowing important-sounding titles on himself to cover up his ineffectual bumbling. The only powers he really has are to sign things and appoint people, and most of those things he signs must be approved by Congress before they even see his desk. Executive orders are really the only place in which he has any teeth, and as we've seen, even those are subject to judicial review.
It all goes back to his actual official title: President of the United States. He presides over the process of governing, and even his say isn't final; laws he signs can be overturned by the Supreme Court if challenged far enough, and his veto can be overridden by Congress with enough votes. He's not a monarch, no matter how many golden toilets he owns.
And unlike his more shrewd predecessors, he's a complete outsider to the governmental process. He quite literally hasn't got the foggiest clue what he's doing. This is a guy who, despite claiming to be the world's greatest businessman, doesn't even read shit before he signs it (literally failing How to Do Business and Not Fuck Up Royally 101). He gets his advice and strategy directly from cable news, and when something doesn't go his way, he whines like a pre-teen douchebag in a Halo tournament on Twitter. At best, he's a useful idiot to the people with the potential to do the real damage.
Trump is that old codger in the nursing home who will sign anything you put in front of him, just because he likes seeing his signature on things. It makes him feel important. Except instead of birthday and Christmas checks to his grandchildren, it's laws and executive orders and military action approvals that affect millions.
It's hard to describe these kinds of people, who are such malignant narcissists and pure fucking evil on every level, but the only reason they haven't gone full comic book villain and subjugated the entire planet is because frankly, they're too fucking stupid to manage such a task. It's why I don't particularly like the comparisons to Hitler; Hitler was able to do the horrifying, world-changing things he did because he was the triple threat of narcissistic, ambitious, and intelligent. Trump is more like Mussolini. Brutal, charismatic, and an utter fucking moron.
The real dangers of his presidency are the people he's appointed to his cabinet, and especially the Congress that confirmed them.
The President was intended to be a check on Congress' power. They can propose and approve all the bills they like, but unless the President signs them or pockets them for ten days in an active session, they don't become law. Think of the President kind of like quality control and safety inspector at a factory, while Congress is the assembly line. The President's job is to approve the product for distribution, or send it back to the assembly line with a list of reasons why it's defective.
If the QA/safety inspector will rubber stamp anything without actually inspecting it? Then the factory can produce whatever it wants, no matter how defective or dangerous. Trump is the QA inspector who is too busy worrying about his side business to care what comes off the assembly line, and has delegated that task to his aides and cabinet. Which leaves them and Congress with an extraordinary amount of power.
That's the reason why, despite committing multiple impeachable offenses, nobody in Congress has actually made a move to draw up those articles; Trump, being both a narcissistic, attention-starved toddler as well as rock fucking stupid, is the perfect broken valve through which a Republican Congress can pass all the shitty bills it wants. Pence isn't nearly so pliable, having real experience in public office and thus knowing how to read things before he signs them. Congress won't impeach him unless he does something which makes even that kind of a payoff not worth their while anymore.
The people Trump has chosen for his cabinet are right out of the narcissist's playbook. People who flatter him and who think much like he does. He's used to surrounding himself with spineless yes-men who, like the residents of Peaksville, OH, will tell their child overlord whatever he wants to hear in order to keep their jobs. And he fancies the U.S. government to be merely an extension of his business empire. Ergo, he expects the people he appoints to do whatever he says (despite that the opposite is literally the function of the cabinet; above all else, they're supposed to warn the President when a bill on his desk is a bad idea).
These yes-men that Trump thinks he's got in his pocket? Include Steve Bannon, an avowed white supremacist who literally wants to destroy the government. Jeff Sessions, a guy deemed too racist to be a federal judge under one of the most racist Presidential administrations in recent memory (Reagan, 1986). Rex Tillerson, an oil tycoon who was awarded the Russian Order of Friendship and is a close buddy of Putin. These are the people who have Trump's ear. The people he trusts to put stuff in front of him to sign, like the old senile codger he's turning out to be.
And just like the guy in the nursing home, he's not willfully signing away power of attorney to his eldest child that just replaced all his heart medication with Tic-Tacs; he simply signed whatever he was told to sign. Trump is hardly the danger, here. The real danger is the people around him who know exactly how to play him to do their awful bidding.
Those are the people we need to vote the fuck out in 2018. Provided we still have a country by then.
1) Resistance is working. The marches, the deluge of calls from constituents, it's working. Betsy DeVos was only confirmed by a tie-breaking vote from the Vice-President because two Republican Senators voted against her. Something that has literally never happened before in a cabinet confirmation.
2) Donald Trump is not who we should be looking at as the real danger. It's the people he's surrounded himself with.
Trump is reminiscent of Poo-Bah from Gilbert and Sullivan's The Mikado. Pompous, narcissistic, strutting around like the peacock with the biggest feathers and bestowing important-sounding titles on himself to cover up his ineffectual bumbling. The only powers he really has are to sign things and appoint people, and most of those things he signs must be approved by Congress before they even see his desk. Executive orders are really the only place in which he has any teeth, and as we've seen, even those are subject to judicial review.
It all goes back to his actual official title: President of the United States. He presides over the process of governing, and even his say isn't final; laws he signs can be overturned by the Supreme Court if challenged far enough, and his veto can be overridden by Congress with enough votes. He's not a monarch, no matter how many golden toilets he owns.
And unlike his more shrewd predecessors, he's a complete outsider to the governmental process. He quite literally hasn't got the foggiest clue what he's doing. This is a guy who, despite claiming to be the world's greatest businessman, doesn't even read shit before he signs it (literally failing How to Do Business and Not Fuck Up Royally 101). He gets his advice and strategy directly from cable news, and when something doesn't go his way, he whines like a pre-teen douchebag in a Halo tournament on Twitter. At best, he's a useful idiot to the people with the potential to do the real damage.
Trump is that old codger in the nursing home who will sign anything you put in front of him, just because he likes seeing his signature on things. It makes him feel important. Except instead of birthday and Christmas checks to his grandchildren, it's laws and executive orders and military action approvals that affect millions.
It's hard to describe these kinds of people, who are such malignant narcissists and pure fucking evil on every level, but the only reason they haven't gone full comic book villain and subjugated the entire planet is because frankly, they're too fucking stupid to manage such a task. It's why I don't particularly like the comparisons to Hitler; Hitler was able to do the horrifying, world-changing things he did because he was the triple threat of narcissistic, ambitious, and intelligent. Trump is more like Mussolini. Brutal, charismatic, and an utter fucking moron.
The real dangers of his presidency are the people he's appointed to his cabinet, and especially the Congress that confirmed them.
The President was intended to be a check on Congress' power. They can propose and approve all the bills they like, but unless the President signs them or pockets them for ten days in an active session, they don't become law. Think of the President kind of like quality control and safety inspector at a factory, while Congress is the assembly line. The President's job is to approve the product for distribution, or send it back to the assembly line with a list of reasons why it's defective.
If the QA/safety inspector will rubber stamp anything without actually inspecting it? Then the factory can produce whatever it wants, no matter how defective or dangerous. Trump is the QA inspector who is too busy worrying about his side business to care what comes off the assembly line, and has delegated that task to his aides and cabinet. Which leaves them and Congress with an extraordinary amount of power.
That's the reason why, despite committing multiple impeachable offenses, nobody in Congress has actually made a move to draw up those articles; Trump, being both a narcissistic, attention-starved toddler as well as rock fucking stupid, is the perfect broken valve through which a Republican Congress can pass all the shitty bills it wants. Pence isn't nearly so pliable, having real experience in public office and thus knowing how to read things before he signs them. Congress won't impeach him unless he does something which makes even that kind of a payoff not worth their while anymore.
The people Trump has chosen for his cabinet are right out of the narcissist's playbook. People who flatter him and who think much like he does. He's used to surrounding himself with spineless yes-men who, like the residents of Peaksville, OH, will tell their child overlord whatever he wants to hear in order to keep their jobs. And he fancies the U.S. government to be merely an extension of his business empire. Ergo, he expects the people he appoints to do whatever he says (despite that the opposite is literally the function of the cabinet; above all else, they're supposed to warn the President when a bill on his desk is a bad idea).
These yes-men that Trump thinks he's got in his pocket? Include Steve Bannon, an avowed white supremacist who literally wants to destroy the government. Jeff Sessions, a guy deemed too racist to be a federal judge under one of the most racist Presidential administrations in recent memory (Reagan, 1986). Rex Tillerson, an oil tycoon who was awarded the Russian Order of Friendship and is a close buddy of Putin. These are the people who have Trump's ear. The people he trusts to put stuff in front of him to sign, like the old senile codger he's turning out to be.
And just like the guy in the nursing home, he's not willfully signing away power of attorney to his eldest child that just replaced all his heart medication with Tic-Tacs; he simply signed whatever he was told to sign. Trump is hardly the danger, here. The real danger is the people around him who know exactly how to play him to do their awful bidding.
Those are the people we need to vote the fuck out in 2018. Provided we still have a country by then.
Tuesday, January 10, 2017
"Princess Mononoke" Is Still a Terrifyingly Beautiful and Chillingly Relevant Film
This month, Fathom Events screened Hayao Miyazaki's 1997 film Princess Mononoke in select theatres to celebrate the movie's 20th anniversary. And I think it's something sorely needed, for a new generation to see this movie. Because if anything, it's even more relevant now than when it was made, current events considered.
While many bloggers have declared Rogue One the movie we needed to see in order to affirm our resistance to oppression and fascism, I would argue that the message in Princess Mononoke is far more comprehensive. While Rogue One celebrates diversity with a great cast and the fight for freedom against a very oppressive (and very white) evil empire, at the end of the day it's still the simplistic space opera of the same stripe as the movies it's a prequel to; the good and bad guys are obvious. You know who to root for.
The world we live in, as much as we would like to believe otherwise, is not so clearly divided. It never has been.
In Princess Mononoke, the title character, Ashitaka, is the last crown prince of a persecuted ethnic group, the Emishi, that was supposedly wiped out five centuries before. In a battle to save his village from the crazed Boar god Nago, he is injured by the demonic presence that had driven the boar mad, and cursed with a demon mark that will eventually consume his body and kill him. As a result, he is ordered to leave his village to prevent the curse from spreading. And with him goes his people's last hope of survival.
As he journeys west, he soon discovers that Nago was transformed from a god to a demon because of what has been happening to the forests; man has been destroying the forests to build forges and get to the iron ore in the ground beneath them, in order to build weapons that they use to hunt the animals that guard the forest. Ashitaka soon learns that what drove Nago mad was rage at the forest's suffering, and the humans that have caused it. His fight is then taken up by Okkoto, another Boar god, who wishes to exterminate the humans and save the forest.
In particular, the humans of a village called Irontown, led by Lady Eboshi, and the men who follow her partner Jigo, a monk who seeks the favor of the Emperor against the local warlord Asano. In Irontown, Ashitaka is enraged to learn of the destruction Lady Eboshi's efforts have caused. But it's tempered by learning that the citizens of Irontown are the most downtrodden members of society. Brothel girls, lepers, etc. Lady Eboshi takes them all in and gives them a place to both feel safe and have a purpose.
But as a result of her destruction of the forest, Lady Eboshi has earned the hatred of the Wolf god Moro, and her three children: her two Wolf pups, and her human daughter San (the eponymous princess), an abandoned child that was thrown at her feet by her own parents when they escaped Moro's wrath. Rather than eat her, Moro adopted her as one of her own. Due to Lady Eboshi's efforts to destroy the forest for its wood and iron, San (and to a lesser extent, Moro) has made it her mission to kill her.
Later on, a plot unfolds between Lady Eboshi and Jigo to harvest the head of the Great Forest Spirit to gain the Emperor's favor. They're successful, but the result is that the Great Forest Spirit drains all life from the landscape while searching for his head. Ashitaka and San return it to him, ending the destruction and repairing the land.
On the surface, the film seems relevant only because of environmental issues. But it's so much more than that. At its heart, Princess Mononoke is a film about the destructive power of hatred, and how we must end the cycle with empathy and compassion for all creatures, not just the ones we belong to.
The four main characters are all foils to each other. Ashitaka represents the best that humanity can be; he wants a perfect solution, for everyone to stop killing each other and to coexist peacefully. As a direct contrast to him, there is Jigo, a self-serving scoundrel who doesn't care what kind of destruction he causes as long as he gets what he wants out of it. In the middle of those two extremes you have San and Lady Eboshi, two sides of the same coin. While San has renounced her humanity, Lady Eboshi completely embraces it, both the destructive and compassionate parts.
While it's true that Lady Eboshi wishes to destroy the forest to get to the iron, she does so because she wants to provide a better life for the people she's rescued. The old and sick, the brothel girls, the lepers...the literal dregs of society that nobody wants to take care of, and that other leaders (like Asano) were implied to be outright purging. As one of the lepers says, she is the only person to treat them as fellow human beings. Despite outward appearances, Lady Eboshi is a kind and compassionate woman...but only toward her fellow humans. She has none of that empathy for the forest or the animal gods that guard it. While she seeks to defend her own home, she has no qualms about razing the home of Moro and San and Okkoto to the ground.
On the flip side, the same could be said for San. She will defend the forest to her last, but has little compassion for the humans defending their home from her Wolf brothers. The only reason she doesn't kill Ashitaka the two times she has the chance is because he appeared to be on her side; the first human she's met who ever showed her any kind of compassion.
And really, that's what sets off the entire chain of events. Ashitaka's mission from the beginning is to see what's happening "through eyes unclouded by hate." And as a result of sticking to that principle, he not only lifts Nago's curse from himself, but ultimately ends the war between the humans and the forest gods.
And it's not an easy mission. Throughout the film, character after character asks, suspects, and demands to know which "side" Ashitaka is on. His motives are questioned by everyone because he doesn't act in the interests of any one person (not even himself, evident when he breaks up Lady Eboshi and San's fight and carries her safely out of Irontown with a gaping bullet wound). And throughout the movie, his motive is the same; to make everyone stop causing suffering.
But the most important part, and the one that is most relevant right now, is that even when it becomes evident that there is no negotiating and Ashitaka must choose a side, the side he chooses is always the side of the oppressed. San, the Wolves, the citizens of Irontown, the peasants being massacred by Asano's men. When Ashitaka must choose to help one side over the other, he always chooses the side that is disadvantaged in some way.
Where we are as a country right now? We need that. We need more Ashitakas. People who would rather see peace, but when forced to choose a side, will help those who need the extra hand most.
Because what we are fighting is not a war of land or resources. We're fighting a purely ideological war, but with the potential to kill just as many as all the other physical conflicts we've seen combined. Because like forest gods, like Jigo's men, like Irontown, like Asano's men, the soldiers in this war are motivated by hatred. And as Ashitaka demonstrated in the film and as millions before us have demonstrated throughout history, you can't fight hatred with more hatred. The only thing that will accomplish is to perpetuate the cycle of violence, suffering and pain. If you fight hatred with hatred, it will eventually eat you alive.
You conquer hatred with empathy, love, compassion and healing.
That's really what the whole movie is about. In order to break the cycle of war, you must have empathy and compassion for others. Even for others who are not like you. Even for others who are trying to destroy you. No, this doesn't mean roll over and take their abuse, but nor does it mean to strip them of their humanity the way they've done to you. Because if you become what you hate in order to win, then you don't actually care about the cause; you only care about winning.
At the end of the day, equality is not about revenge. Equality is not about making other people suffer as you have. Equality is about making sure nobody else suffers as you've done, that nobody else need go through the same pain and horror and hardship that you've endured. Equality is about leaving this world a better place than you found it.
We must see the world with eyes unclouded by hate. It's the only way we're going to lift this curse.
While many bloggers have declared Rogue One the movie we needed to see in order to affirm our resistance to oppression and fascism, I would argue that the message in Princess Mononoke is far more comprehensive. While Rogue One celebrates diversity with a great cast and the fight for freedom against a very oppressive (and very white) evil empire, at the end of the day it's still the simplistic space opera of the same stripe as the movies it's a prequel to; the good and bad guys are obvious. You know who to root for.
The world we live in, as much as we would like to believe otherwise, is not so clearly divided. It never has been.
In Princess Mononoke, the title character, Ashitaka, is the last crown prince of a persecuted ethnic group, the Emishi, that was supposedly wiped out five centuries before. In a battle to save his village from the crazed Boar god Nago, he is injured by the demonic presence that had driven the boar mad, and cursed with a demon mark that will eventually consume his body and kill him. As a result, he is ordered to leave his village to prevent the curse from spreading. And with him goes his people's last hope of survival.
As he journeys west, he soon discovers that Nago was transformed from a god to a demon because of what has been happening to the forests; man has been destroying the forests to build forges and get to the iron ore in the ground beneath them, in order to build weapons that they use to hunt the animals that guard the forest. Ashitaka soon learns that what drove Nago mad was rage at the forest's suffering, and the humans that have caused it. His fight is then taken up by Okkoto, another Boar god, who wishes to exterminate the humans and save the forest.
In particular, the humans of a village called Irontown, led by Lady Eboshi, and the men who follow her partner Jigo, a monk who seeks the favor of the Emperor against the local warlord Asano. In Irontown, Ashitaka is enraged to learn of the destruction Lady Eboshi's efforts have caused. But it's tempered by learning that the citizens of Irontown are the most downtrodden members of society. Brothel girls, lepers, etc. Lady Eboshi takes them all in and gives them a place to both feel safe and have a purpose.
But as a result of her destruction of the forest, Lady Eboshi has earned the hatred of the Wolf god Moro, and her three children: her two Wolf pups, and her human daughter San (the eponymous princess), an abandoned child that was thrown at her feet by her own parents when they escaped Moro's wrath. Rather than eat her, Moro adopted her as one of her own. Due to Lady Eboshi's efforts to destroy the forest for its wood and iron, San (and to a lesser extent, Moro) has made it her mission to kill her.
Later on, a plot unfolds between Lady Eboshi and Jigo to harvest the head of the Great Forest Spirit to gain the Emperor's favor. They're successful, but the result is that the Great Forest Spirit drains all life from the landscape while searching for his head. Ashitaka and San return it to him, ending the destruction and repairing the land.
On the surface, the film seems relevant only because of environmental issues. But it's so much more than that. At its heart, Princess Mononoke is a film about the destructive power of hatred, and how we must end the cycle with empathy and compassion for all creatures, not just the ones we belong to.
The four main characters are all foils to each other. Ashitaka represents the best that humanity can be; he wants a perfect solution, for everyone to stop killing each other and to coexist peacefully. As a direct contrast to him, there is Jigo, a self-serving scoundrel who doesn't care what kind of destruction he causes as long as he gets what he wants out of it. In the middle of those two extremes you have San and Lady Eboshi, two sides of the same coin. While San has renounced her humanity, Lady Eboshi completely embraces it, both the destructive and compassionate parts.
While it's true that Lady Eboshi wishes to destroy the forest to get to the iron, she does so because she wants to provide a better life for the people she's rescued. The old and sick, the brothel girls, the lepers...the literal dregs of society that nobody wants to take care of, and that other leaders (like Asano) were implied to be outright purging. As one of the lepers says, she is the only person to treat them as fellow human beings. Despite outward appearances, Lady Eboshi is a kind and compassionate woman...but only toward her fellow humans. She has none of that empathy for the forest or the animal gods that guard it. While she seeks to defend her own home, she has no qualms about razing the home of Moro and San and Okkoto to the ground.
On the flip side, the same could be said for San. She will defend the forest to her last, but has little compassion for the humans defending their home from her Wolf brothers. The only reason she doesn't kill Ashitaka the two times she has the chance is because he appeared to be on her side; the first human she's met who ever showed her any kind of compassion.
And really, that's what sets off the entire chain of events. Ashitaka's mission from the beginning is to see what's happening "through eyes unclouded by hate." And as a result of sticking to that principle, he not only lifts Nago's curse from himself, but ultimately ends the war between the humans and the forest gods.
And it's not an easy mission. Throughout the film, character after character asks, suspects, and demands to know which "side" Ashitaka is on. His motives are questioned by everyone because he doesn't act in the interests of any one person (not even himself, evident when he breaks up Lady Eboshi and San's fight and carries her safely out of Irontown with a gaping bullet wound). And throughout the movie, his motive is the same; to make everyone stop causing suffering.
But the most important part, and the one that is most relevant right now, is that even when it becomes evident that there is no negotiating and Ashitaka must choose a side, the side he chooses is always the side of the oppressed. San, the Wolves, the citizens of Irontown, the peasants being massacred by Asano's men. When Ashitaka must choose to help one side over the other, he always chooses the side that is disadvantaged in some way.
Where we are as a country right now? We need that. We need more Ashitakas. People who would rather see peace, but when forced to choose a side, will help those who need the extra hand most.
Because what we are fighting is not a war of land or resources. We're fighting a purely ideological war, but with the potential to kill just as many as all the other physical conflicts we've seen combined. Because like forest gods, like Jigo's men, like Irontown, like Asano's men, the soldiers in this war are motivated by hatred. And as Ashitaka demonstrated in the film and as millions before us have demonstrated throughout history, you can't fight hatred with more hatred. The only thing that will accomplish is to perpetuate the cycle of violence, suffering and pain. If you fight hatred with hatred, it will eventually eat you alive.
You conquer hatred with empathy, love, compassion and healing.
That's really what the whole movie is about. In order to break the cycle of war, you must have empathy and compassion for others. Even for others who are not like you. Even for others who are trying to destroy you. No, this doesn't mean roll over and take their abuse, but nor does it mean to strip them of their humanity the way they've done to you. Because if you become what you hate in order to win, then you don't actually care about the cause; you only care about winning.
At the end of the day, equality is not about revenge. Equality is not about making other people suffer as you have. Equality is about making sure nobody else suffers as you've done, that nobody else need go through the same pain and horror and hardship that you've endured. Equality is about leaving this world a better place than you found it.
We must see the world with eyes unclouded by hate. It's the only way we're going to lift this curse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)