Trump's Dirty Tricks (An Apolitical Take)

I want to make it clear that I don't write about "politics." If you were to search the 14-year history of this blog, you would find, though, that I have written about the human condition surrounding politicians. Donald Trump has given me, let's say, much to consider in that regard. It's no secret: I have no respect for the man as a man, especially because I think he manipulates people on a level that I have not seen from a politician in my lifetime. That said: I think there are three types of people who support Trump.

1. Those who are racists and want to make America white again. (Because Trump's dog-whistles are pretty loud, like implying, recently, that Robert E. Lee is unfairly "no longer in favor," and then quoting him.) He's giving them his validation -- the way it was in the Stanley Milgram experiments: the authority is giving permission and encouragement -- "Stand back and stand by." Is he a racist? He may or may not be. I'm not sure. But maybe it is even more inhuman that, if he's not, he is simply reaching for the votes of racists. 

2. This group I feel compassion for: those who are fooled by his brilliant ploy of using the vague catch-phrase ("Make America Great Again") into thinking he is talking about that specific time in which they were happiest. When exactly was America great? "Oh," says the victim, "I remember..." (Yeah, I did call it "brilliant." If I say Hitler was a good orator, I am not saying he was a great guy.) Anyway, these poor people think Trump stands for all of the often laudable conservative values they espouse (some of which, to be clear, I also value); they just don't realize he's completely bamboozling them and that he, personally, holds none of the values they do. The paradox is that he is everything they, themselves, have taught their children not to be: misogynistic; a bald-faced liar; an whining complainer; an excuse-maker; an elitist. This is often the result of a lack of education. They don't know history and they have never read "The Emperor's New Clothes." Or, it could also be a willfully ignorant kind of hope. The conservatism I grew up with was about "truth, justice and the American way," not complaining, making excuses and bragging about where you can grab women. (Also, remember: the picture at the top of this post was made by Trump. It is not satire. This is the image he was literally selling.)

3. Those who really don't like him and know he is a dishonest creep, but who "like his policies."

It is the third group I would like to appeal to. The first two are probably beyond convincing. 

I remember having a long discussion with two very intelligent friends about Trump before the 2016 election. The topic was a philosophical one: How much does a president's character mean, in the grand scheme? After all, Clinton and even the sub-beatified Kennedy were not great guys. My friends (two of my best, to this day) felt that policy was most important. I remember saying that Trump, immoral worm that he is (I believed it then and I believe it now), was going to do great damage to the spirit of the country if not the body. I wish I had been wrong. (I know his supporters would argue that he was not the problem; I don't see it that way, and I am not hashing out that argument now -- that is about politics.) I think his example has shone the light on the hidden cock roaches everywhere. I think he has taught our young men that one can be president and treat women, including his own wife (he cheated on her -- there is no remorse), like garbage. (And, as I have said, he has also fooled otherwise well-meaning folks into his illusion.) 

In my 56 years alive, I have never seen such widespread, unabashed disregard for other humans and it comes in the wake of his influence. A MAGA lady at a rally, for instance, responding to a reporter's point that many children have died in Ukraine. The woman's response: "That's fine with me. Putin just wants back what is his." 

It is fine with her that children are dying. People like this never seemed to feel empowered to say these things out loud before in public interviews. Why now? It could be said I am using a false cause...but I don't think so. 

So, what is my message to group 3? If I am right about Trump's negative effect (you might disagree, but I can't see how) supporting him because you like his policies is a bit selfish: "I don't care if he is a disease to the national spirit, because I like his policies on the border." All I ask is that you consider that. 

I think it is nearly impossible to argue that Trump is a good person. He proves, out loud, every day, that he is narcissistic and unfeeling, and he is caught in lie after lie. He is clearly trying to win votes from racists. If you are okay with all that because you support some of his policies, then continue your Internet travels... 

 

At Least : On Indifference to Abortion

I heard this awhile ago on NPR: A woman named Kenya Martin, from the National Network of Abortion Funds, said this to an audience, and it turned my blood into ice chips:

"It's okay to have an abortions after some hot sex simply because you don't want to get pregnant. I just didn't want to be pregnant, and I want you to know that if that's your experience, that's ok, too."

Is it?

Let's travel back in time...

Once, women were locked away for getting pregnant out of wedlock. Once, women sought out unsafe terminations for unwanted pregnancies for fear of the shame they would have to endure. Once, women who got pregnant at what society or religion deemed "the wrong time" were made to feel dirty and low.

Then, things changed. Intelligent and caring people developed sympathy, even when they thought the behavior of others was wrong (not unlike the example of Jesus with the prostitute in the Gospels: You guys don't get to judge her as a person, but, He does tell her: "go forth and sin no more."). In my own experience, even in my teaching in Catholic schools, girls who got pregnant were supported and encouraged to graduate and, yes, to have their babies. They were not shunned; they were supported. Sure, pregnancy outside of marriage is a no-no in the Church, but the sacredness of life wins out over flat rules: the baby needed to be taken care of. If this is a violation of what you see as a woman's rights, at least you have to admit that there is a morality guiding it, even if you don't agree with that morality. There is an attempt (at least) to do what is seen as right. 

In the litigious realm, one reason abortion was legalized is so that women do not endanger themselves with unsafe abortion providers. Of course, there was and is debate over the morality of this...but that is the nature of the beast. If you think abortion is an abomination, in any or all circumstances, at least you have to admit that the laws were decided upon with the intention of benefitting women "in trouble," as the old phrase goes. Sure, you might believe it is downright wrong, but, at least, there was an attempt at promoting what is deemed fair and just. 

Again, it is not about whether you agree or disagree with the policies. The bottom line is, that there is an attempt at fairness and morality. An attempt, if not a success.  At least. Because humans try to do what they believe is best for each other.  

Now, here we are in the present, and we get this souless statement, above -- a statement that dismisses much that makes us human, at all. 

Forgive me another digresson, but let me tell you how I feel about sex. (Maybe, also take a moment to evaluate how you feel about it.)

To me, sex should be a "big deal." It's not a diversion. I, personally, don't believe in "casual sex" and I do believe that sex is a major step in a couple's relationship: You had better be very sure about this person before you commit to that kind of ramping-up of the stakes. 

I realize that, in today's world, many disagree with me. They are welcome to do so. I'm not God. I just know what appears to me to be human Truth: sex is a high-level activity with major spiritual importance and to turn it into a mere form of amusement is to devalue it. 

You may not agree with me, but, at least I am trying to make sense of the world and to try to live a life in a way that seems right, to me. If you think I am wrong, that's okay. But at least I am trying. At least I care enough. 

What's missing from the statement of Kenya Martin? Nothing much. Just every element that makes humans humans. It is an inhuman statement of complete indifference to the subject that so many feel is one of the most important questions on morality. 

What it implies is that we ("we," as in the man and the woman, both) have absolutely no responsibility to even try to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. It says that the desire for momentary pleasure is justification for abortion -- or, as she says, "abortions" (plural, as if doing it over and over is okay) -- as a form of birth control. It doesn't even debate, as the abortion argument often does, when or whether or not the resulting conception is a life. Martin just doesn't care about any of this. No factor but the individual's desire, in the moment, is to be considered. 

I can process and understand the intentions of a person on either side of the abortion debate if that person is weighing in on what he or she thinks is right. But I doubt the vailidity of a person (as a person) who thinks abortion is no big deal. Ask women who have had abortions if they think it was "a big deal." What kind of a person wouldn't, at least, think it was a big decision? (I have known several woman who remember it as a life-altering experience.) 

Martin's attitude seems symptomatic of a loss of all boundries of human decorum. If she represents the evolution of the future of human thought...it's all over. Imagine if everyone pursued pleasure to the exclusion of all sense of responsibility. 

I prefer to (read: "must, for the sake of my sanity") think of her as an outlier. I don't think of those few women who have confided in me about having gotten abortions as inhuman or evil; I don't get to judge them. At least, it was a big deal to them. It changed them in some way. Because they have human empathy. Because, at least, they care about ideas outside of themselves and about the embryo who could have become a walking, talking person. A human considers that possibility, whether she decides to abort or not. 

One could argue that Martin's statement is not without the "at least" factor; that she is promoting this idea out of concern for women and that she wants to end the abortion stigma, and, therefore, that there is morality there; for me, though, it's an "any-means-possible" argument. I wouldn't tell my child to acquire happiness by disregarding responsibility, ignoring the vailidity of another life and pursuing completely hedonistic ideals. One could argue that any villain in history held to certain moralities: Hitler wanted to make things better for the Aryan Nation. 

Am I comparing this woman to Hitler? No. But I am comparing the idea that even villains and the un-empathetic think what they are doing is the right thing to do, so to argue that there was an at least in their thinking doesn't really stand up. There are no Dr. Evils in the world -- people who just delight in doing evil. They either think what they are doing is right or they simply can't control what they do. 

And if you are one of those people who believes men have no right to opinions on issues touching on abortion, I dismiss your position. It's stupid. I'm not, in any way, trying to make decisions for women. I am just saying that they (and men, as well)  should, at least,  care about their decisions

And, besides, I am not writing about abortion rights. I am writing about the slow loss of humanity in our culture. 

Elie Weisel once said that "indifference is what makes the human being inhuman." Indeed. 

The Tides of Morality

Over the last few years (while I wasn't paying attention, apparently) certain things that were once considered almost absolutely wrong are now considered admirable. Among these things are bragging, suicide, self-made and self-distributed pornography and incest.

I have heard each one of these behaviors, in print and elsewhere, defended at least once in the past year and, in those defenses, the behaviors above were not just defended, they were praised.

How I feel about these things is irrelevant. The important thing is that these changes serve to convince the active observer of societal trends that when it comes to morality, it really is now just a question of the tides in thought; concrete touchstones of what is "right" no longer exist; it is all a question of what the majority speaks up for. And when one has as many people (as much water) as we do, the movement of the ideas (the currents) is that much more apt to sweep people's thoughts along.

In the past, people were willing to accept absolutes. If God or if the king or if the law said it was wrong, it was wrong. Sure, some didn't think that way, but most did. Authority was something they were used to. Obeying was something they were compelled, either by force or by convention, to do. If, say, the Church told people not to marry their own siblings, they mostly fell in line. Those who did not fall in line were considered "sick."

"Truth is, after all, a moving target..."

All of my adult life, and through a good portion of my younger years, I have been tormented by statements and maxims about "doing the right thing." Sometimes, in simple times and circumstances, "the right thing" is clear to all; most often, it is not. At any rate, I often have wished I could be as sure about everything as everyone around me seems to be.

Maybe because of my instinct and (I hope) ability to look deeply into everything I see, I could never help but say, "Yeah, but...how can one be sure of what the right thing is?" I always knew that often "the right thing" was more connected to group consensus than to morality or reason. (In some ways, morality is nothing but a group consensus, when you think about it.) Stand among an enthusiastic group for awhile, and what they agree upon will seem the "right thing." But what if you had stood, first, among their enemies? You might have been just as likely to side with that group -- not because of any flaw in yourself, but because people who truly believe they are right think so as a result of their available perspective and of the information they have at their disposal. The "wrong" side may be in possession of different information that, if known, might put a whole new spin on things. Sometimes, though, bigger pictures preclude the sharing of such information, for better or ill. Or, sometimes, things simply get misintrerpreted. But the worst of all possible scenarios is the presence of people who are more interested in "winning" than in finding the truth.

Morals, Law and the Yuck Factor

Is it yucky or is it not yucky for consenting adult siblings to have an incestuous relationship?

(Please answer aloud.)

Is it immoral or moral for consenting adult siblings to have an incestuous relationship?

(Please answer aloud.)

Should if be a crime or not for consenting adults siblings to have an incestuous relationship?

(Please answer aloud.)

The venerable Peter Singer wrestled with this question recently because Germany is in the process of trying to figure out the last question.

I have question one pinned down: Yes. It is yucky. And I do think it should be yucky to all sane people. If you disagree with me, that is fine. It's what I think and feel.

Question two is tougher. It brings in lots of questions, including sanity and insanity and how these mental states relate to moral choices... I could give that a whole article, but that is not what I am up to here.

Question three, is difficult, too. Unless, of course, I answer from my gut. If I answer from my gut, I will be compelled to try to stop such yucky behavior. Should a harmless spider die because I think it is disgusting? Is homosexuality as much of a crime-able offense as incest just because I am heterosexual and am strongly averse to the idea of being with a man the same as I am averse to the idea of sex with a sibling?

Viral Morality vs. Changing our Children

Everything is external in our current culture. Everyone recognizes that, right?

If we want to combat racism, we set up think-tanks and we draft new policies. We demand investigations. We band together and have riots.

If we want to fight against drug use, we pass laws. We arrest people.

If we want kids to do better in school, we force them to meet homogenized standards on cookie-cutter tests.

Even the ALS challenge, thing...

Let me say this: it is working. People know, now, about the disease who never before did. The money raised has been astronomical, compared to years before. Practically, it is a wonderful thing. (For now; until the novelty dies off.)

It is interesting to me that things like this ice-bucket challenge are labeled "viral" because that is really what has happened. People have caught this "virus" that prompts them to donate -- or, at least, to pour water over their heads.

Good Guys and Evil Deeds

I was listening to a radio interview earlier today and the guy being interviewed had travelled with former President Bill Clinton. He said, just in the course of conversation, "Yeah -- Clinton is a good guy."

This got my gears turning with thoughts about human nature versus human behavior. After a few miles of contemplative driving (and then getting snapped out of it by a panicked thought that I was extremely low on gas and had forgotten to stop with no more stations for miles, even though I actually had stopped and filled-up somewhere in the midst [and in the mist] of my little conceptual journey) the question formed itself: Can a guy who does heinous things be a "good guy."

This is one of those occasions on which I am sure someone will swoop in and explain to me that Cerebellus Maximus, in the third century, asked this very question -- but, so it goes. I guy can't have read everything, you know. (Someone once mentioned a book that I hadn't read and I told her I hadn't read it. "Aren't you, like, a literature guy?" she responded, aghast. Apparently, we "literary guys" are supposed to have read everything ever written.)

Anyway, old Bill is famous for lots of things -- like having been a not-so-bad-at-all President. He blew a mean sax, too. Unfortunately, he was also in the habit of keeping company with a certain infamous White House intern who had a similar talent, if you take my meaning. In short, the guy cheated on his wife. Or, more accurately, I think: he cheated on his family. That's the way I see it, anyway.

Life Against Life

To close out a week of musings on war, I’d like to strip things down a step farther.

To me, killing is wrong.  Killing is always wrong, no matter what. This conclusion is constituted of both what I think and what I feel, but especially of what I feel -- which, to me, is the true magnetic component of the moral compass.

Hold on -- before you start throwing hypothetical scenarios involving threatened grandmothers at me, stick with my line of thought, for a bit...

Killing is wrong, but I would kill under certain circumstances.

If I needed to kill in order to defend my family, I would -- without hesitation.

The difference between me and a lot of other people is that I wouldn’t try to argue, afterward, that this killing was morally okay simply because I had just done it with good reason. In those circumstances, I would kill, but I wouldn’t then try to argue that killing was okay. I would call it a moral transgression that I was willing to commit in order to preserve the existence people whose lives were more important to me than the life of the person I had killed -- I chose commit a wrong because I felt compelled to protect those I love, not because I believed that it is okay to kill “under certain circumstances.”

Fearing the Way

These things seem true to me, regarding sexuality:

1) It is one of the most profound things in human existence.

2) It is so profound that it frightens many of us.

3) That fear causes some of us to hide from sexuality's profundity.

4) That drive to hide from sexuality often makes us behave illogically.

These things seem true to me about traditional wisdom:

1) Self-control is held in high esteem. 

2) Self-control is often regarded by students and teachers alike as a constant need, rather than a thing that may be let-go, under the proper circumstances (which, in itself, is a kind of modified control).

3) Therefore, any abandonment of control is regarded as failure and, sometimes, immorality.

Because of the truths above, many a bride -- and perhaps many a groom -- over the course of time, have fellt guilt over their pleasures with their spouses, even if they followed the rules of her religion and "waited." Why? Because the act in which they engaged felt like a loss of self-control; like an abandonment of everything they were taught. They stood too close to the doorway to Tao -- that place where all of our morals, all of our logic, and all of our social graces evaporate into the vapours of all creation . . .

Sure Enough to Kill Troy Davis

So, Troy Davis is dead.

Strapped to a gurney in Georgia's death chamber, Troy Davis lifted his head and declared one last time that he did not kill police officer Mark MacPhail. Just a few feet away behind a glass window, MacPhail's son and brother watched in silence.

And, despite his claim that he is innocent of a crime for which there is no physical evidence (according to a report I heard on the radio this morning), it seems the witnesses were enough to make it stick. The victim's mother says:

[Davis has] been telling himself [he's innocent] for 22 years. You know how it is, he can talk himself into anything (same source as above).

As anyone who reads my stuff with any regularity knows, I'm not a current events guy, except when current events raise larger philosophical questions about life. I can't stay away from this one.

It Ain't Natural

From Darwin's
The expression of the emotions in man and animals

We're kind of stuck, aren't we? We like to argue for the legitimacy of things by saying: "It's natural." Of course, by this, we imply that natural means it is okay -- good for us; advisable; even moral. Sometimes, the argument works; usually it doesn't. I think it would be good if we all remained aware of this.

Yet, we construct belief systems that are meant to elevate us above the rest of nature. Sex, for instance, is natural. It is natural to feel sexual feelings. How we act upon those feelings throws us into a tizzy, though. Usually, we put lines around it: You may be sexual under conditions A, B and C, but not under condition D. You may be sexual under condition A, as was aforementioned, but not if element Z is introduced into the situation.

What's Worse?

I've touched on this before, but it is hard not to revisit something that basically amounts to the world force-feeding my children its prevailing attitudes.

I'm constantly amazed at the things people worry about -- the things we think we need to protect our children from. Let's play a game of "What's Worse?"

Here we go:

Good is the New Bad

Once, while helping a friend of mine to move, I took out a desk drawer, as is the protocol, and I saw three glossy, black-and-white photographs of a naked girl staring up at me. She was in her twenties and posing proudly -- shamelessly -- for an anonymous photographer. She was standing in the bathroom -- in a hotel or a dormitory or something.

Having had no respect whatsoever for the privacy or feelings of my friend, as was the dynamic of my group of twenty-something pals at the time, I yelled: "Yo! Who is the naked girl in your desk drawer?"

My friend, sweaty and annoyed by the work of the day stepped into the room, mopping his brow with an old shirt. "What?"

Calling All Ladies and Gentlemen . . .



John Jacob Astor IV, who is
said to have put on his tuxedo during
the sinking of the Titanic, so he could
die "like a gentleman."


Read carefully -- there will be a quiz.

Today, I was in the drugstore with my little boys. At the check-out, there was a line of magazines, right at their eye level. Each magazine was graced with a picture of a beautiful woman. Most were wearing low-cut dresses, but one of the women was seductively opening her shirt, exposing most of her bra; her head was thrown back, eyes mostly closed, mouth barely open.

Recently, on the radio, I heard a song. The singer used the "f-word" but they "edited it out," so that he only said: "fffk," in the song.

On Nickelodeon, the children's channel, there is a show called "Victorious," about a bunch of kids in a performing arts high school. Victoria, the main character, sings a song called "Freak the Freak Out." Some lyrics: "What I'm gonna do now is freak the freak out."

What Would "What Would You Do?" Do?

You've probably heard of the show "What Would You Do?" On the show, produced by ABC, they set up scenarios and wait to see, well  . . . what people will do in morally questionable situations. When all is said and done (or not done), John Quinones steps in for an interview.

I've only seen it a few times but, for instance, last Friday, they got actors to portray construction workers who were saying inappropriate things to a pretty girl (also an actress) in front of a New York City lunch truck. Bystanders reacted in various ways, from ignoring the whole thing to offering to do some Picasso-inspired renovations on the construction workers' faces.

The Men and Women of the TSA, Uncovered

(This ran Wednesday at When Falls the Coliseum, as well, but what the heck.)

I've got it! The solution is nigh. Listen carefully, everyone.

So, everyone is bent out of shape by the TSA's naughty little scanners. And for derned good reason. By this point, you have read enough Internet rants and debates about the issues, so I won't get into the fine points in detail here, but many of them are based on invasion of privacy, implication of guilt, etc. Maybe there is no way out of this. Maybe there is no way out of getting scanned and/or groped in airports. Fine. Here's how we make it fair (and maybe pleasant).

How We Oil the Cold Machine

Issue 1:
In Connecticut, a drunk driver who is in jail, currently serving ten years for running over and killing a fourteen-year-old boy (the man was doing 83 in a 45 mph zone), is suing the deceased kid's family, claiming they owe him $15, 000 because of "great mental and emotional pain and suffering" and loss of "capacity to carry on in life's activities." He says the kid should have been wearing a helmet. Well, he should have, right?

Issue 2:
People are outraged at airports because the TSA is inspecting their nude bodies on X-ray scanners in order to -- claims the TSA -- keep the airways safer. The people who complain say this is an invasion of their privacy; it is akin to accusing them of being criminals -- worse, terrorists, they say. The TSA says these machines are going to keep the skies safer; the rest does not matter to pragmatists. They have a point, right?

Issue 3:
In the quasi-historical film Braveheart, William Wallace, after fighting viciously for the freedom of Scotland from England, dies like this (warning -- brutal content, in case kids are around):