Monthly Archives: December 2020

Synchronicity Runs Deep Revisited

 

NOTE:  The idea for this blog materialized yesterday following three news stories which came together in a perfect brainstorm–announcement of a forthcoming book about Donald T****’s last days in the White House, the 40th anniversary of John Lennon’s murder outside his Central Park residence and the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court to reject an application for injunctive action to stop certification of Joe Biden’s victory in Pennsylvania.

Yesterday, Washington Post chief White House correspondent Robert Costa and investigative reporting icon Bob Woodward announced they would team up to write a chronicle of Donald T****’s final days in the Oval Office.  This will be Woodward’s second such effort following publication of The Final Days, documenting the end of the Nixon era, co-authored with former Post colleague Carl Bernstein.

Woodward and Bernstein: Watergate echoes loud in Donald Trump era | Watergate | The GuardianHighlights from Woodstein’s (the moniker given to the two then rookie journalists by Post editor-in-chief Ben Bradlee) collaboration included Nixon’s conversation with portraits of previous presidents and his asking then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the night before his formal resignation, to get down on his knees and join the soon to be ex-president in prayer for the nation.  In memory of John Lennon, on the anniversary of his death, I thought it would be an apt tribute to “Imagine” what one of the juicier tidbits might be in this forthcoming narrative of how another delusional commander-in-chief coped with his pending exile from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Imagine the following excerpt from the Costa/Woodward book.

Truth Wars
Episode Four/A Final Hope

The news had not been good.  But no one should have been surprised.  If you are going to pick a metaphor, select one that matches your desired outcome.  If you want to destroy an enemy, do not compare your means of doing so to the Empire’s “Death Star,” as did T**** campaign manager Brad Parscale.  He obviously slept through the last ten minutes of every Star Wars film in which the rebel forces destroyed this ultimate weapon over and over again.  Or refer to the emergence of a less-than-crack legal team as “unleashing the kraken,” another fatality in the annals of cinema.

But hope survived.  T**** had assembled a rag-tag trio of Supreme Court appointees akin to Luke, Han and Leia–otherwise known as Neil, Brett and Amy–who he believed would secure a victory in the face of insurmountable odds.  As one by one battleground states certified Biden wins, T**** became more despondent and reached out to the only person in the White House who had long-past tested positive for the coronavirus or was not currently quarantined–Third Lady Melania.

As T**** entered the outer office to Melania’s private quarters, he noticed an open newspaper on her aide’s desk.  And there it was, a giant headline, “Supreme Court Delivers.”  “I knew it,” T**** shouted.  The master plan had succeeded.  Once again, everyone had underestimated him.

The jubilant president burst through the door to FLOTUS’ office to deliver the good news.  “Stop packing,” he cried.  “We won.  We won.  The Supreme Court delivered for me.”

Melania could only laugh.  She then explained, “Dahnold, ‘Supreme Court’ is the contractor I hired to install the playing surface in the new tennis pavilion.  And as promised, they delivered the surfacing materials, at no charge.  I thought you would appreciate that.  This is just an advertisement, silly boy! “

“Haven’t you been watching the news?” she continued.  “The Court just unanimously rejected Mike Kelly’s application for injunctive relief to stop Governor Wolf from certifying the Pennsylvania results.”  She handed him a copy of the court order.

Supreme Court rejects Pennsylvania Republicans' attempt to block election results - CNNPolitics

“That’s it?” T**** asked.  To which Melania replied, “In more ways than one.  But, on the bright side, Jill Biden will be the one who has to work HER ass off on all this Christmas stuff for the next four years.”

The couple is distracted by a bell ringing three times in the background.

Confused, T**** inquires, “Melania, what’s that?”

“In the old country, my teachers always said, ‘Every time a bell rings, a Supreme Court justice grows a spine.’  Happy holidays, dear.”

“Damn it, Melania.  I told you never ever say that.  For the last time, it’s ‘Merry Christmas, MERRY CHRISTMAS!  Even when it’s not.’  I may need those evangelicals again in 2024.”

ENDNOTE:  Of course, this is fiction.  But, based on the last four years, it is probably not nearly as crazy as what will actually take place.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

The Source

 

In his signature style of grand storytelling, James Michener sweeps us back through time to the Holy Land, thousands of years ago. By exploring the lives and discoveries of modern archaeologists excavating the site of Tell Makor, Michener vividly re-creates life in and around an ancient city during critical periods of its existence, and traces the profound history of the Jews, including that of the early Hebrews and their persecution, the impact of Christianity on the Jewish world, the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition.

~Inside Flap/The Source

TheSourceNovel.jpgJames Michener’s The Source is an onion with 1,104 layers through which the author reveals the evolution of Israel from her beginnings as a strategic asset in the on-going battle for control of the region to a stop along the Far East trade routes to a sanctuary for the Jewish people post World War II.  Except in this case the onion is Tel Makor, an archeological site which housed multiple civilizations over the millennia, one on top of the over, each drawn to the spot by a freshwater well, a valued asset in an otherwise arid environment.

[Historical Note:  The actual dig on which Michener’s fictional version is based is Tel Dan, which overlooks the plains of Arman-Megiddo, referenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls as the battleground for the final conflict between the forces of light and the forces of darkness.  It is also the etymological origin of the term “Armageddon.”  The fact it is also equidistant from Tel Aviv and Damascus might also keep you up at night.]

The process by which the protagonists in the story, four archeologists, document the history and interpret what they observe is a model for approaching any discovery or new information.  What triggered my renewed interest in Michener’s take which I first read in preparation for my first trip to Israel in 1974 was the potential relevance to on-going debate over the impact of social media such as Facebook, Twitter or even a blog such as Deprogamming101.  What if we approached each social media post or comment in a manner akin to the meticulous step-by-step practice of an archeologist who looks not just at the content of an artifact, but questions who left it and why.

I have long since cancelled my Facebook and Twitter accounts, but am frequently the recipient of emailed articles or links from family, friends and colleagues.  They may be follow-ups to something I have written in this blog, a perspective on an off-line discussion in which we are engaged or just an attempt to affirm their perspective on a topic du jour.  Sometimes the sender will forward an article about which they knew I will object as a means of prodding me to present the counter viewpoint.  And throughout much of 2020, I welcomed this challenge and made the effort to address either inaccurate information, questionable logic in the interpretation or both presented by the author.

However, since November 3rd I have taken a different tack.  Before reading any article, I have approached the materials as a data archeologist a la the main characters in Michener’s tome.  The process begins with the same underlying hypothesis, “How can one truly understand the content without first exploring its origins?”  In other words, who wrote it and why?  Of course, this raises the next question, “What criteria does one use to determine the potential value of each ‘artifact’?”  Having now engaged in this practice for just over a month, I found two yardsticks which make the difference whether the subject matter is read or ignored.

First, the history of the organization associated with the content.  When was the entity established?  What events might have motivated the founders to act at a specific point in time?  Has the entity recently renamed or rebranded itself or changed its mission?  Who are the founders?  Who are listed as directors, advisors or consultants?  These questions differentiate commentators who have a history of punditry covering multiple issues and those who use a website or created a presence to promote themselves as an expert or leader of a single issue movement.  Or whether the organizational affiliation is a front that gives its members credibility on the topic which they might otherwise not deserve.

Second, I Google the name of the author to see what else he or she may have written.  For example, a recent letter to the editor in our local paper consisted of a diatribe against the radical left, conspiracy theories about the “stolen election” and unsubstantiated charges of Biden family corruption.  The first hit from my search was a 2015 opinion essay by the same writer calling for people who submitted opinions to newspapers to demonstrate “civility and credibility.”  As Buffalo Springfield would say, “Hypocrisy runs deep.”

So, to those who want to share mainstream or social media with me, you can save us both time and effort.  I welcome viewpoints, even those with which I might disagree, from sources such as the Wall Street Journal or even the National Review as I do from The Atlantic or Washington Post.  Nor am I concerned if a long-established source takes up a new cause as I assume they apply the same editorial standards as they have in past and their history provides evidence of any partisan or ideological bias they may bring to the table.

The same is true of commentators the likes of George F. Will or Peggy Noonan.  They may spin the facts, but they do not promote conspiracy theories.  And when recently they condemned a wannabe dictator’s efforts to overturn the will of the people, it reinforces my willingness to listen to their side of a policy argument, knowing that we share a common commitment to the democratic process.

And though I do not expect others to follow these same rules of the road, this approach does provide insight to the dilemma created by open-source platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and TikTok.  Despite recent efforts to filter content and the apologies for past failure to do so, primary responsibility for what one views or ignores is up to the individual.  While each platform must address clear threats to public health and safety, the worst actors in these storm clouds over Madisonian liberalism will always be the subscribers to the services, regardless of political affiliation or ideology, who choose not to peel back the onion in order to question not only what they read, but why they are the target audience and the history and motivation of those making that decision.

As Walt Kelly aka Pogo always reminds us, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

A Post-Trump Confessional

First, he came after James Comey, and we said nothing.

Then, he called white supremacists and neo-Nazis fine people, and we said nothing.

Then, he called the press “the enemy of the people,” and we said nothing.

Then, he separated children from their parents, and we said nothing.

Then he accused George Soros of financing illegal immigrants and one of his followers murdered 11 congregants at the Tree of Life Synagogue, and we said nothing.

Then he called Hispanics “breeders” and one of his followers massacred 23 El Paso residents, and we said nothing.

The he called for the arrest and jailing of his political opponents, and we said nothing.

Then he accused Democrats of rigging the election, and we said nothing.

Then he came after us, and we spoke out and are being praised as heroes for standing up to him.

~Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and Voting System Implementation Manager Gabriel Sterling

2020 election: Georgia official Gabriel Sterling calls out Donald Trump, sounds alarm about 'potential acts of violence' - ABC30 FresnoPlease spare me.  After all this you voted for him and said you would vote for him again.  I’m sorry, but heroes do not wait until they are the ones in personal danger.  They use their position, authority and everything at their disposal to safeguard those who are caught in the crossfire.  Yes, I know Sterling said he did not do it for himself, but for a 20 year old delivery man who was only doing his job.  But, if he and Raffensperger had spoken up immediately, maybe that young man would not have been put in such a dangerous situation in the first place.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

“Woke” Democrats

 

The key to successful real estate is, “Location! Location! Location!”

In politics, success is dependent on, “Turnout! Turnout!  Turnout!”

For most of the 21st century, Republicans have been the master of turnout.  They have done so by relying on the following adage from the legal profession.

If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the lawpound the table.

The facts are not on the side of the modern Republican party, especially in the age of Trump.  They are anything but the deficit hawks they claim to be.  They pretend to be populists, yet constantly side with the wealthy and corporate interests.  They want you to believe they are the party of “law and order,” yet refuse to condemn conflicts of interest, corruption and the shredding of the Constitution by the leader of their party.

Nor is the law.  Time and time again, GOP governors and state legislatures are rebuked by the courts for attempts to suppress voter participation by populations who do not buy into the false narrative in the previous paragraph.  Of course, the most recent examples are the range of questionable legal maneuvers to overturn the 2020 presidential election.  Fortunately, in response to this attempted rape of Lady Liberty, the courts have affirmed, “When she says NO, she means NO!”

Without facts or the the law in their corner, the GOP has mastered the art of table pounding using “fear” as their hammer.  Fear’s calling cards?  Migrant caravans bringing criminals and disease to the United States, which miraculously disappeared after the 2018 mid-terms (unlike COVID-19 in April).  Cries of “socialism” even though the GOP tax cuts represent the single largest redistribution of income in American history.  Violent protesters threatening helpless suburban housewives.

The irony, however, is the disconnect between the effect of these tactics on a national audience versus the impact on state and local voters.  Democrats have won the popular vote in seven of the last eight presidential elections.  Yet Republicans, with the exception of the 2018 mid-terms, made gains in congressional races, governorships and state legislatures.  This success can not be attributed to table banging alone.

Instead, Republicans have assured high turnout among its voter base through ballot referenda.  Take Texas as an example.  In both 2018 and 2020, polls suggested Democratic candidates had a fighting chance to win statewide office.  None succeeded.  How does the GOP governor and legislature help?  By making sure there are ballot propositions which are near and dear to their base.  Consider the following issues on previous ballots.

  • Texas law shall not restrict prayer in the public schools.
  • Texas law shall not restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
  • Parents or legal guardians of public school children under the age of 18 should be the sole decision makers for their children’s health care including contraception and sex education.
  • Bail shall be based only on a person’s danger to society and risk of flight, not that person’s ability to pay.

Taken together these four propositions could be branded as the “Lone Star GOP, old white men’s, evangelical bill of rights.”  In a 2020 survey of registered Republicans, each measure received a 85.38 percent or higher favorable rating.  And you can bet the ranch, those voters do not just talk the talk.  They show up on election day to walk the walk.

You might ask, “What does all this have to do with ‘woke’ Democrats?”  This week, Nancy Pelosi may have figured out this same tactic can work in Democrats’ favor.  On Friday, the House passed the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act (MORE) which decriminalizes marijuana at the federal level and provides guidance to cancel low-level federal convictions and arrests related to use.  Not surprisingly, the bill is expected to die in the Senate as Majority Leader Mitch McConnell opposes it.

The timing could not be better.  You want young people to make a difference in the January 5th Georgia senate run-off elections.  Remind them that their vote could be responsible for MORE’s passage or defeat in the next Congress.  Imagine the formation of a “MORE Committee” on every Georgia college campus with signs that read, “You deserve MORE!  Vote Warnock & Ossoff.”

To complete this metaphor, it appears the alarm may have gone off.  The Democrats opened their eyes.  But I am not convinced whether they are fully “woke” or will hit the snooze button and go back to sleep.  A living, breathing House leadership would do the same with net neutrality and student debt.  Then ask the Lincoln Project to create the media campaign that reminds young voters the only thing standing between action on these issues is Mitch McConnell and the GOP senate majority.

That would be a good start.  If successful, it could be a model for taking back control of state houses in 2022 and adding to Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.  Otherwise, Democrats will be perpetually engaged in a table pounding contest with the GOP, a skill they have yet to master.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Good News Is No News

 

1a: a report of recent events

1b: previously unknown information

~Definition of “NEWS”/Merriam-Webster

The operative words are “report” and “unknown.”  In other words, if you want to speculate about what may or may not happen or if you want to share the same information (e.g. T**** lied today about …) over and over, feel free to do so.  Just do not call it news.  Consider this sample of headlines from today’s broadcast  media outlets.

CNN

  • “Former presidents volunteer to get vaccine publicly to prove it’s safe.” NEWS because it is recent and previously unknown.
  • “Our cities may never look the same again after the pandemic.” Speculative OPINION.

MSNBC

  • “Multiple casualties after warehouse explosion near English city of Bristol.”  Very recent (reported 19 minutes ago).
  • “Alleged pay-for-pardon scheme might be two low-level knuckleheads..but might not.”  Possibilities, not NEWS.
  • “T**** rages over the election, ignoring a rampaging virus.”  Same old, same old.  Not recent or unknown.

Fox News

  • “Pelosi, Schumer endorse $908B coronavirus relief deal as basis for negotiations.”  The issue may be old, but is NEWS because of the recent development.
  • “Far-left is ruining games that are meant to be entertainment.”  Includes unsubstantiated claims attributed to “most Americans.”

Compare this with Walter Cronkite’s reporting of what was one of the most significant events in history, the first moon landing.  Below is the transcript of the CBS broadcast at the moment Eagle touched down on the lunar surface.

Eagle: Contact light. O.K, engine stopped…descent engine command override off…
Wally Schirra: We’re home!
Cronkite: Man on the moon!
Eagle: Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed!
Capcom: Roger, Tranquility. We copy you on the ground. You’ve got a bunch of guys about to turn blue. We’re breathing again. Thanks a lot.
Tranquility: Thank you.
Cronkite: Oh, boy!

I could have drafted this entry any time during the past decade; so, why today?  Because yesterday several news outlets reported T**** may not attend Joe Biden’s swearing-in ceremony on January 20th, and is more likely to hold his own rally to announce he will run again in 2024.  One anchor imagined what that “split screen” might look like.  My question, “Why would any legitimate news service even consider airing a “made for TV event” next to a real moment in the history of our nation?  Or why is this even NEWS as defined by Merriam-Webster?  What is recent or unknown?”

  • T**** cannot stand to have anyone else in the spotlight?  NOT NEWS.
  • T**** lost the election in a “landslide” per his own definition of the term in 2016?  NOT NEWS.
  • T**** is announcing his re-election candidacy within hours of an inauguration?  Definitely NOT NEWS, as he did the same thing in 2016.
  • T**** is good at holding super-spreader events and people will die?  NOT NEWS.
  • T**** does not believe in democracy or the Constitution?  NOT NEWS.
  • T**** is a dick?  NOT NEWS.

The last time a split screen on inauguration day might be justified was January 20, 1981, when at noon EST, Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president and the Iranian hostages simultaneously began boarding a plane to bring them back to the United States.  Yet, even then, the first footage of the hostages was not broadcast until Reagan finished taking the oath of office.

6 things you didn't know about the Iran hostage crisis - CNNJan. 20, 1981 | Iran Releases American Hostages as Reagan Takes Office - The New York Times

Normally, I would say the role of the fourth estate is to report the news, not make it.  But if on January 20, 2021, they choose not to broadcast whatever T**** is doing at noon or cover this latest episode of his reality show for what it is, celebrity entertainment rather than a story of national import, THAT WOULD BE NEWS.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP