So, when we were growing up, all our parents wanted us to be doctors, or marry doctors. In the USA, especially among the immigrant class, this was the replacement for aristocracy or whatever high class equivalent that saidyou made it. So because of that, combined with the revving up of our capitalist system in the 2nd half of the 20th Century, this is how we got to where we are. Doctors are the closest to God, like kings once were. Not to be questioned, heroic, larger than life, saviors. Nevermind the large numbers of them slinging plastic surgery and opiates and other non-essential services. Are doctors seen this way in other countries, say, Russia or China--aren't they more humble, make less money, and part of the hoy polloi? If we didn't worship the career so much, we wouldn't be willing to pay so much for it--thinking it is so valuable a service. Thus, the imploding of our health care system. In some places, and in the US in the past, the work itself was what got respect. Are there really tiers of doctors and is the cost the best sign of quality? Designer doctors? I'm afraid that like a lot of American product, tis is a lot of hype and a house of cards.
America loves to make heroes: soldiers, sports warriors, and in recent history, the 9/11 fireman and police, and now medical staff. Thank god they are including nurses this time around, However, Nurse Jackie gives a caveat--the heroes always have a dark side. Being a hero, if you're not Jesus Christ himself, takes a heavy toll, and we in America need to address that and stop calling people heroes while expecting them to work 60 hour weeks, have a perfect family life, and be model citizens. This Hero worship attitude has screwed up many of our nation's potential; its soldiers, policemen, fire-fighters, ER doctors, nurses, teachers. We cannot run on empty, and we have to look at the type of personalities who are drawn to danger--they are easy to flip to the dark side. Look at the make-up of the Capital rioters.
Thursday, February 7, 2019
Rags
February 7, 2019:
I realized for the first time how much journalism has changed since my childhood, and even young adulthood, when my daughter moved to Brooklyn about 10 years ago, with a fresh English degree from her honors college, and got to write a story, a blog really, for the prestigious New York Times. It was a features about the people who hand out water during the NY Marathon--slice of life thing. It felt like a breakthrough, but it wasn't. She didn't get paid, just the honor of having her name associated with the NYT. It was a theme for her life there: two unpaid internships at publishers that forced her to get jobs, in the meantime, at coffee houses, perfumeries, and bookstores to pay her rent. I know how this industry, in its moment of crises, has burned through a mess of millennials, and NYT may have actually been better than most.
We know the causes: CNN and the 24-hour news-cycle. Internet news. A thousand news start ups challenging the old gray guard, in print and on TV. Internet ads, the destabilizing effect of rescinding the Fairness Doctrine on Network TV, allowing for the rise of Fox News, and yes, MSNBC, so that journalists feel like they no longer need to feel objective or fact driven. Opinion has become news; we hardly get anything else these days. I waste so much energy trying to find good pieces out there, and they sure are lacking, even with all these young, Ivy-league and super-educated minds going to waste out there.
So, I've had it. I'm starting a list. Of un-newsworthy headlines. Or undignified op-eds. Unlike my music lyric list "Words for Food" with all my favorite and inspiring words in music, this list will be one intended to make collective blood boil. I know the millennials, probably deciding their words aren't valued anyway, have a hand in this--it's their language and slang/obscenities half the time. I'm really getting tired of seeing swear words in headlines--how are you supposed to take a newspaper seriously when its editorial staff doesn't? I think I'll make some system where I try to highlight the most egregious, overwrought, non-objective words in the headline, to emphasize what I'm seeing. I'm sure I could fill up a whole page, just today, with little effort. I don't know whether to just let them work their own magic or annotate.
Well, as it goes, I suppose. Hopefully someone will be embarrassed enough to stop. Here's the inaugural headline:
Feb 7, 2019-
"Everyone Should Wear Nametags. All the time" Shannon Palus
******************************
--Here's one from Fox, Feb 18, 2019:
"Kamala Harris gives awkward response when asked about Jussie Smollett claims"
Ok, I just peeked at it, to be fair if I was going to be critical. So her "awkward answer " (asking her to walk back a tweet supporting Smollett) was comprised of a speculation that she was looking around for staff, implying she doesn't write her own tweets. Her answer was perfectly reasonable, saying she should wait until all evidence unfolds, but then the text gratuitously threw a bunch of "ums" in her direct quote to make her sound either unsure or insincere. Did I just imagine that when I was younger, the press itself made some sort of effort to demonstrate that anyone guilty of a crime, or the victim, was treated objectively until the evidence was in? And remember those fine old days when a minor's name wasn't dragged through press mud to protect them?
Huffpost, again:
Roger Stone Attacks Judge Presiding Over His Case In Bizarre Instagram Post
NBC News, April 27, 2019:
White House celebrates Melania Trump's birthday with bizarre photo
Washington Post, May 16, 2019:
Kushner skirts GOP senators’ key questions on his immigration plan
This one maybe isn't as bad as usual, but it does have a bit of snark-what might be a more objective word/phrase? leaves unanswered, perhaps. I know it's the truth, more or less, but why put the 40% off
Jun 19:
Ok, so I haven't been very diligent with this post, mostly because I am truly having a hard time finding any hard news stories that make my point AND don't leach into an opinion piece. I mean, look at any news feed, any day--more than half if not more is just opinion pieces reworked into news. Either there is much less hard news than there used to be or newspapers/news sources just aren't doing their jobs. So I might have to just resort to identifying the worst sort of opinion pieces that insult my intelligence and verges on propaganda, attempts to unfairly sway. From today's Huffpost is a case in point:
Huffpost, June 19, 2019:
Democrats Slam Joe Biden Over Comments Invoking Segregationist Senators
Will Joe Biden Ever Learn To Stop Joking? | HuffPost
Yahoo News, June 23, 2019:
Trump warns he’s not ‘prepared to lose’ reelection
Yahoo News, Sept. 22, 2019: (Also labeled POLITICS)
Intelligence whistleblowers face a dangerous path to Congress
I don't quite see, having already read the backstory from several sides on this issue, how the word commanded is warranted here. Two thoughts: the writer is a conservative and wants to make Adam Schiff sound imperious, or the poor thing is a liberal wanting to reach in and grab the recipient of his subpoena (and any interested parties), pressing down the weight of his position that might not be taken seriously. Either way, from a the point of view of old journalistic standards, the word commanded in this context looks ridiculous and biased. This is one of the kind of pieces that I'm getting so tired of--not exactly basic, fact presenting news, but also not really an op-ed article, the kind that just reek of spin and analysis that makes both sides weary.
And, I highlighted the entire question in red because it is the pinhead on which this whole article spins. When you read more, it probably seems somewhat clear that the writer is leaning lib/Dem and thinks she is addressing folks who are already putting up walls against believing the whistleblowers' story. She's going to tell you logically why a whistleblower cannot go straight to Congress. But here's the problem--how many readers, seeing that 2nd line, just stop there (as I almost did, but for possibly different reasons), and then go on to use the "bypass of Congress", which they may have not thought of before reading this, unfortunately, as an argument to support their anti-whistleblower views at their next social/social media function?
This is why I am so damned tired of , and lose respect for, overly clever journalists/journalism.
April 14: Saw this today, at the height of the U.S. Covid crises:
Business Insider, via Yahoo News: April 14-
All But Three People Who Died from COVID-19 in a Major US City Were Black
So, the cherry-picked stats made it look like the City was majority white, if you weren't paying attention to the wording. The white population is 65.5% in the county, but only 46% in the city (it surprises me it's that high, but must be the newly gentrifying Central West End).
Anyway, I know the writers were trying to do-good, but they stretched the truth, and anyone in that area of the country would feel that and now be dismissive of any info from that source. Good job, do-gooders: the ends justify the means, no? That's the part of the country that can't be alienated.
Apr 15: I see a well-respected paper calling out these stories that are fueling racist interpretations of Covid victims. Hmm, I feel prescient, and not affiliated with anyone's b.s.
April 22, 2020: I think I've discovered the New Fox News--check out this headline that flies in the face of all other polls, which show Biden with a pretty strong lead, including in some of these swing states. To be fair, A St. Pete poll shows Biden/trump in a tie.
Trump Has Narrow Lead in Key Swing States Despite Voters' Frustrations with Coronavirus Response
President has one-point lead in six crucial states even as voters there worry about opening the country too quickly
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-poll-swing-states-2020-election-coronavirus-response-a9478776.html
Ok, I'l admit this is not a screaming headline. (Others of theirs are, however). It is just how it opposed everything else I've been reading over the last few weeks, which has been showing a fairly steady trend of Biden rising, Trump sinking, and especially concerning his handling of the corona crisis. But enough of The Independent's stuff has been off trend that I decided it was time to check out its history and present day owners--well, it started as a Tabloid. And now is own by Russians--fancy that.
Not enough for you, my skeptical friend? Let's look at some of their other recent headlines, cherry-picked by hand, by moi:
This is the headline that changes after you click on it, from
Claims of "Fake News" Descend into Chaos at Bizarre Briefing as CDC Chief Admits Quotes Were Accurate
to (once you click on the story), because if that headline wasn't confusing enough, the second was almost as bad:
Trump calls on CDC Director to Denounce "Fake News" --who Admits Paper's Quotes are Accurate
I suppose they were not satisfied with the first? Don't get why they didn't take it down, then...
Entire Police Force "Resigns" After Officers Suspended For Violence
Yeah, I added the caps, because for some reason this paper disdains headline traditions. If I hadn't been seeing these stories all day, I would have no idea what was going on in these headlines. I can't even tell if it's anti Trump or not, but it's definitely up to something. The plain story of the "Fake News"story, that I luckily heard first on NPR, is that a head CDC guy said he was sidelined for telling news Trump didn't want to hear: that Covid will be back in the winter--(duh). But exactly who is this set of headlines--one so bad they needed to double down in badness--who is it trying to appeal to?
The Police Force story smacks of typical British yellow tabloidism--it's the story of the 57 "band of brothers" who quit a special squad (not the entire police force!) in protest of two in their ranks getting suspended for knocking down and sending to hospital a 75 year old man. That story was spun in the American press too, because I read an ancillary story that quoted one of the men who "resigned"-(let's call it what it really was--they asked to be taken off the special unit; they didn't quit the NYC police force), anyway the former special units member asked to be taken off because the policeman's union wasn't going to support them. So this story gets a double spin, first making the resigners look even worse than they did than when they all walked past a bleeding, unconscious man without doing anything--for "quitting". Then the British version implies the entire NYC police force quit--what a sensational , apocalyptic story that is! Next, Protest Zombies come back to life! Again, when you click on this click-bait headline, the second is slightly more reasonable, detailing "an" entire police force--hmm. But repeats the sensational "quitting in protest" from the American press, which now seems questionable.
This paper quite obviously not trying to actually give the public any information. And I rest my case for the Independent--now a clearly, used -up, dirty dish rag. ("Taps" will now play...)
June 6, 2020:
Trump Demeans Female Black Reporter As She Challenges Him On Black Unemployment
Huffpost: by Mary Papenfuss
This story occurs at the end of the first week of the George Floyd protests. I am going to play devil's advocate here, because I really am in agreement about Trump with both Ms. Papenfuss and Ms. Alcindor, the subject of the story. I just don't see why the Huffpost feels the need to inflate plain English. The words/facts/speeches should speak for themselves:
The put-down occurred after Trump crowed in a Rose Garden statement about a better-than-expected 13.3% unemployment figure for the nation in May. The president shockingly claimed that it was a “great day” for George Floyd — the Black man a white police officer killed last month in Minneapolis — because he would be pleased “looking down” at the jobs stats.
Like I implied, Trump's words and behavior are definitely worthy of the news' focus, but in the old days a true journalist would refrain from the intentionally emotive language, for the sake of objectivity. It feeds into the right's argument that certain journalists/media platforms are subjective. This article was labeled Politics, but not Opinion, which it clearly is. I don't really get this new designation of Politics, and I suspect other readers are confused too--some sort of blurry line between facts and opinion.
I used to teach my students the art of letting words and ideas speak for themselves rather than diluting them with hyperbolic adjectives and so forth. It carries more weight, for example to say, "He was a strong man" which sounds like a quiet observation, than "He was an extremely, very strong, man", which sounds like the writer is working too hard to impress, and smacks of, as Hamlet wittily observed, one who "doth protest too much." To fix, and not blow one's credibility as an objective watcher, it would have been better to say, losing the "air quotes" , my would-be corrections in red:
The
revision--
said, “Equal justice under the law must mean that every American receives equal treatment in every encounter with law enforcement regardless of race, color, gender or creed. They have to receive fair treatment from law enforcement. They have to receive it.”
“We all saw what happened last week. We can’t let that happen. Hopefully George is looking down and saying this is a great thing that’s happening for our country. (It’s) a great day for him. It’s a great day for everybody. This is a great, great day in terms of equality,” Trump continued.
--because these are the actual words he said. Of course, though, the actual words by themselves don't support the article's claim that George would be happy about job's numbers. I took out that partial "ironic air quotes" (cheap writing) because they add opinion to the facts, and I would like to note that I had to dig through several stories on this speech before I found one, on CNN, which has the actual speech words with a smattering of frame, much less and more objective than the Huffpost article. Huffpost , although it had a clip of the speech, cut it off at the strategic moment where they were interpreting the truth. You can definitely see the difference, and one must suspect that the left simply feels any mention of Floyd's name should be off limits to Trump, which seems a bit over the top to me--he is, after all, as much as we'd like to disavow him, an American, with a horse in this race. The connection to the unemployment numbers is much less direct than the Huffpost writer claims, even though it is part of the same speech. Noted.
TTtttttt
Monday, December 17, 2018
Faith
Friday, December 15, 2017
Faith
This morning as I was walking to school, I was scrolling through my phone, looking for some entertainment to pass the time. I saw someone's essay on Goodreads, on a review about Bertrand Russell's Why I'm Not a Christian, which I read years ago, and put in the vault along with all my other thoughts about philosophy, God, religion and the great existential questions.
Not to mention, all the great literature I've read throughout my life, from all over the world, that reinforces and elaborates on these ideas.
Short answer, I would say, if I didn't want to get into it, or read the room as a bit aggressive:
"It's Complicated". Or, "Well, I was raised Catholic..."
I think some of my students read my very intimate and extensive knowledge of Catholic ritual and history as belief. My faith, so to speak. They would be right on a very surface level. Catholicism is a piece of my soul I cannot remove or deny, just like I can't avoid being Italian, Irish, British, and some other Eastern European bloodline. I can't erase 17 years of my life or even my family's continued pressure. They are definitely Catholic, most of them. Others kinda see-saw.
There is something about the richness and awe in the ceremonies and churches of Catholicism. It just sort of amazes me that fairly primitive human beings came up with such a concept, to civilize and pacify humanity's violent tendencies. And, in some cases, it worked--Kings were not rebeled against, men reeled in some of their baser animalistic natures, particularly for sex. Women were revered (in theory--when they weren't being abused) on some level and protected. Of course, there were all those Church fueled wars. However, there was also a facade of politeness that was reinforced by the church structure.
In these days of incivility I can respect that.
And Jesus. I like Jesus, but not in the same way these redneck Southern baptists do. I don't emblazon him on my truck and drive like a madman disregarding others' safety. As a general principle I have much greater respect for the older, more traditional religious practices: Catholicism, but also Eastern and Greek Orthodox, Judaism. See, these are solid, steadfast, and not mutating all over the place. Although I don't agree with the Pope on things like birth control and such, but he always maintains the same baseline. Who's the biggest peacenik in the world? The Pope, through Vietnam, Middle Eastern messes, nuclear war, terrorism, North Korean threats, he always reinforces Jesus' message of peace, in defiance of the politics of the times. That's cool. And poverty--he's the only world figure going to bat for the poor these days.
I have less and less respect for the myriad forms of Southern Christianity in America. In fact, I would like to state that I can see, in the very public forms, very little that exhibits Christian morality in their ideas and practices--as they mutate into a thousand political forms. All that bullshit about being blessed and superior as an excuse for being rich and cheating people--God wanted them to do it-He sanctioned it! Cart before the horse thinking.
And those dip shits marrying and blessing their guns!!WTF!!
First, here's the baseline I was taught, and still believe in:
- #1--The Golden Rule: Do Unto Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto You.
- #2- The Seven Deadly Sins:
---Pride
---Envy
---Anger
---Greed
---Gluttony
---Sloth
---Lechery, Lust
And, every reinforcing piece of literature, from medieval times on, that illustrates how these can enter human life. Pride, of course, being the devil's own sin, and #1 one of what not to do in order to be a good person. I admit struggling constantly with my pride; of my knowledge, schooling, pov, skills and abilities. I do try! One problem about this in the modern world is humility--the opposite of pride--is seen as weakness. I suspect it has so much to do with why powerful men have decided it's their birthright to control the "weaker" women in their lives. ( And people of other races, backgrounds). But see how medieval thinking (maybe not actions--these were ideals, of course) used to undercut those grandiose ideas? Even the simple idea of courtesy, of the big, bad knight dedicating his service, platonically, to a lady? That whole unrequited love trope.
Greed is the interesting one for the day. And echoing that New Testament adage: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven." It doesn't say it's impossible (how big a needle, how big a camel?) But you can see the tipping point--greed. All these folks who believe they are using their hard-earned money for the greater good: are they? I can see someone convincing themselves they are contributing to the greater good by, say, contributing to a political party, but are they really just lying to themselves about fattening their own cushy lives? Or using a tax break--which substantially takes away from others--claiming they are going to be "job-creators". I think it's awfully hard for a businessman who feels he's worked very hard for his bread, deserves his cushion, fears a fall and is providing for his children--so many ways to play the compassion game--and I do think fear is an intense motivator, the forgotten underlying motive, that fuels an unconscious need to keep acquiring more and more. I do understand the pressure to get your child properly educated and prepared for adulthood, but it seems there is a better way than merely giving them things; you should also give a little hardship, motivate and teach, possibly even with a little deprivation. The endgame is self-reliance, no? which does not come in a box.
I have students with 4 I-phones, all active.
Seems there's just an awful lot of unnecessary crap that comes in a box.
Labels are so easy to take on. Generalizing and judging.
- #3 Judge not, lest ye be judged. That's the smartest idea of all. And one we all miss on regularly.
- #4 (Roy Moore's sin of Pride): The 10 Commandments
-Worship no other gods but the Almighty-no false gods
-Do not take the Lord's name in Vain
-Keep holy the Sabbath
-Honor your father and mother
-Do not kill
-Don't commit adultery
-Do not steal
-Do not lie
-Do not covet your neighbor's goods
-Do not covet your neighbor's wife
Of course, in all of these, the devil is in the details. What is adultery, killing, lying, stealing? Keeping holy the Sabbath? Thousands of years of traditions for differing religions have been built out of the different answers to these questions. Many of us think Roy Moore has broken several of these, but he doesn't think so. Maybe he wanted that big monument up to remind himself. But why did it have to be on Government property?
Can I make an argument that the GOP taking away their neighbor's healthcare is covetous and stealing?
I don't think too many clear headed people would argue with the spirit of these ideas, even if they might argue the letter of some churches' interpretations. Atheists might argue against the false gods, Sabbath, and Lord's name commandments, but I think if you consider the spirit in them, even an atheist should see the sense as pertains to the rhythms of a good, thoughtful life: have a day of rest and contemplation. Swearing is usually done as insult--don't do it. Don't be taken in by Messianic bullshit, including churches who worship--eh, L. Ron Hubbard or their false creation of business "Jesus".
I'm big on taking this to a sensible level to a plane of mutual understanding, not some church's devilish details, including the Catholics'.
So am I really Catholic? It's complicated.
Do I believe in Scientific Facts? Most certainly, the ones that have been proved and seem logical.
Am I an Atheist? I don't think the atheist, scientists have evidence there is no God, as they should if they want to take that route. Can't prove a negative in logic, right? DT needs to learn that.
Am I agnostic? Possibly. But I like the feel of believing something better is possible even if it's almost impossible.
I also feel truth in Buddhism, although that's harder to break down into moral behavior, except also to sacrifice yourself and understand your relationship to the other in life.
I still think these rules stated above are good ones, until we come up with something better.
I do believe, in spite of the news and appearances of the world, that good will out over evil, or bad, or negativity, whatever you want to call it. I think most people have an instinct for it. I think people can change, even if you shouldn't help them reinforce their most negative qualities, perhaps by helping them too much. Let them have their own responsibilities to ruin or redeem their lives. I believe in love, as I have stated elsewhere, and although it's terribly hard to define--eros? agape? Fraternal or motherly?? I'm certain it exists, is not a figment of romantic imaginations. I have faith that the majority of folks are on an upward trajectory of reaching towards the light.
Dec 19: The Young Pope shall send this thread in a strange direction. More after digestion.
I do want to get to the place where religion goes wrong, where it becomes rigid and inflexible, when it fails at complexity, that is looking at life's complexities. Then, there is fanaticism. A word that has been watered down to fan. Fan of--um, Kiss, or Miley Cyrus, or Depeche Mode.
Hate to resort to this sort of thing, but here's a dictionary definition for fanatic:
a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause.
Jan 10: However, I have a particular distaste for the points of view of the people I know who are atheists. In seems to become stronger in those who may have been forced into religion early in their life, by family or culture. It irritates me to death that some atheists, especially two I know too well, think this philosophy is bred from some superior intellect, some superior objectivity that is guiding their, um, non-soul. Prove it, say I. Prove there is no God. no spiritual force, unseen, working in the universe. What is it? Lessee, isn't there some maxim in logic theory that you cannot prove a negative? * So, therein lies the flaw in their logic--D.O.A. So, they usually resort to the ad hominem argument that religious people are fools, deceiving themselves. Not exactly an objective argument.
* see Bertrand Russell's argument about the teapot in outerspace for a rebuttal, but then there are plenty of rebuttals to his rebuttal...
I think perhaps just like you can have religious fanatics, you can have atheist fanatics. They are obsessed with the idea of proving spiritual ideas to be wrong, most commonly by using a lot of straw man arguments--pointing out the idiocy of snake-handlers and Pentacostals and violent Christians who don't turn the other cheek, the greed of the Medieval Church preaching that greed is the root of all evil and taking everyone's money--sure, they did that. All those things may be true, but it's only the far side of the spectrum--doesn't prove that spirituality, or any particular religion has no merit whatsoever. It's just another extreme view to me.
I showed my Drama class today several clips about MLKing, Robert Kennedy, JFK, to give them some context about the 60s, and the upcoming MLK holiday for which we are getting a day off--except for me who stupidly volunteered to get up early to go with the group taking the boarders to Cape Canaveral to the Kennedy Space station before I knew I coulda had the day off. Eh, I'm kinda glad I'm going--besides sleeping in, what would I have done with myself? I like my boarder kids this year. It made me feel nice when some sparked up to know I was going with them. ))
But back to MLK/JFK/RFK. I had pulled up the "I Had A Dream" speech b/c one of the Chinese kids had asked why we had Monday off and who was MLK anyway? So, since this class still has a lot of AWOL Holiday people, and this group sorta works independently, I figured I could show the video and they could watch it or not while they did their work. Honestly, if you are paying attention and have any humanity, any notion of the context, I don't know how any sentient being could not help being moved by that speech. Add to it the "I Been to The Mountaintop"speech, knowing he's gonna die that week...
Well, when my Drama kids walked in, who are 60% or more African American--some are mixed race--I purposely left the MLK speech up, wondering if they'd ask to see it--thinking they are making the teacher go off topic (beware the guile of teachers planning a teachable moment.) They asked, I started it up, and one had the temerity to ask--so, that was during the Reagan administration right? It was a very sincere question, and I explained it was the 80s when Reagan was Pres: this was the glorious and terrible 1960s.
So, recognizing the appalling lack of knowledge our school system had afforded this curious African-American young man, who regularly spouts pop culture references to Malcolm X and the Black Panthers, but doesn't seem to know why they existed, I launched into a mini-history lesson that featured my personal time in these historical moments. My first stop was RFK's announcement, during his jump into the 1968 Presidential Campaign as a last minute candidate, of the assassination. He made a quite stirring and emotional speech, that only he could have made, in his place in history, having the arduous task of telling a huge crowd of his supporters that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on that night in April, had been shot and killed (I added the detail for my audience that the horrid shooter was a man from my small home town in Illinois). To the questions about the racist nature of my town, I explained what I knew about the complicated racial history of my town, the white landowners who before the Civil War bought land and gave it to runaway slaves who came to our town through the Underground Railroad up the Mississippi. And actively made rumours of "Indian sightings" to keep nosy slave-catcher types away. About the white abolitionist who was murdered by other white men, the laws in Illinois that weren't exactly "slavery", but allowed one to keep another man or woman in indentured servitude with no pay for 99 years..
I could see RFK's speech had had the desired effect, and explained that he himself was assassinated two months after. Then I showed the Zapruder film in all its blurriness, so they would understand why Robert had the moral authority to tell Blacks to use reason, not attack all white men, because he had experienced the same sort of violence at the hands of a white man--and everyone felt the weight of those words. I let it run a little into a short clip about the magic Bullet theory and why it was wrong, but explained how Americans were feeling, why there was so much skepticism to believe authority. Then we went back to "I Have a Dream", after I gave some local history of life in St. Pete for blacks pre-LBJ, who gave himself Vietnam nightmares so he could pass Civil Rights legislation.
Can you believe? I had a kid thank me for sharing all this with them, in the way I'd done it. I really felt like I'd accomplished something. I said, those were the kind of politicians America used to have.
The future--ten kids at a time.
This is why I believe in something beyond us--something made MLK, made Robert Kennedy the fulcrum of a powerful historical moment. They were not perfect men, but they stood for something. It may be forgotten, the world may throw shit on it. But, maybe not.
Jan 24: To Congress and the executive branch:
You, sir, are no John Kennedy. (Nor Robert, neither).
Jan 31, 2017:
So I was asked a deeply profound question: "Can I (or anyone) change?" In keeping with my , uh, faith, I have to almost instinctively say "Yes!" It's that old question the Determinists ask if people truly have free will. My philosophy is, they do. We may have to fight the science in our bodies, but we still have a choice. Maybe I only believe this because I think the other option is so very ugly.
But now I have to think about why that is right, and of course it also relates to my personal troubles--which I think I have already perhaps had success with by making some small, but significant changes. Like not letting other people control me so much. They can't control what doesn't comply, Да? Better for both. I take the time for my own consumption --what I'm going to put in me both physically and mentally. I'll have a big challenge in a week or two when the in-laws come. She ain't gonna push me about. Can that one change? Addendum--I think she's getting too broken to push.
But why can people change? Let's take something obvious, and science based, like an addiction. Drugs, porn, sex, alcohol, love, internet addictions. OCD addictions like flicking the light switch. A need: for speed. A manic's need for change, new sensory experiences. Obviously people have gotten themselves off these addictions. Cynics might say they just substitute another behavior, a better addiction. Religion for Booze, via the 12 steps. Lessee, did I do that when I quit smoking? I don't think so. What did I substitute?
Can't think of anything. Had another baby? Nah. Work? Possibly, but I already worked when I smoked. I think some people do swap out one thing for another, like strict exercise routines after a cocaine addiction.
But I think I mean more deeper, profound changes. For example, I think maybe I perhaps didn't like myself as much when I was, say, 20. Bucking the system, and getting negative feedback. I made superficial changes, for example, by being more punk/rebellious in a place where that was not quite acceptable. Maybe that sorta forced me to change, but further down the road, when I watered it back more.
Going through a real hardship, like possibly losing my daughter via the divorce--emotionally, was more a crucible for real change for me--knowing I could only count on myself to believe that she will understand where the truth of our terrible situation lies. It's one of those things that just comes with time, repetition, solidness of character. It was a mantra to me--just be yourself, the truth will show itself. And it did. And it did force me to choose exactly those things that were most important, most me.
I think that is really the answer to why I believe. Because I told myself it would happen, and it did.
Maybe I need to work again on what exactly it is that I want, especially from my creative self. I'm bored with playing by myself, and bored with the repetition band. But, see, here's the tricky part. Being bored is certainly not new for me--my whole life has been me searching for something outside of the boredom. I think I need to look less outside myself for the boredom busters.
It's in my head, right? The kingdom of heaven..
Feb 1: Threading the needle morally, so that you don't destroy others but make yourself happy, is really, really difficult. And takes subtlety. I don't mean subtle like the serpent man. But being open and looking at all the rabbit holes and time tunnels you might be making in your life--anticipating the consequences. Trying where you can.
And actually knowing what it is you want. There was a scene in the season 4 finale of Californication that maybe gets close--the family and friends just laughing, relaxed (a little high, granted) and feeling the love of each others' company. That's what I want, I think. And don't have.
Why don't I have it? Or, better, why do I feel like I don't have it? Maybe I do. Nah..I spend too much of my free time alone. But I do have my moments..