SPOILER ALERT

The Others, a 2001 film starring Nicole Kidman, takes place at the end of World War II in a remote house in the Channel Islands.  The matriarch of the family Grace(Kidman) and her two children eagerly await the return of her husband Victor and their father from the battlefront.  Meanwhile, they experience a number of odd events which Grace attributes to “the others,” spirits she believes also occupy the property.

It is clear the house has been the site of some tragic or heinous event.  The moment of illumination comes when Victor’s parents conduct a seance in hopes of cleansing the structure of its past.  Only then does Grace realize she and her children are “the others,” the spirits who still dwell on the premises.  As her memory returns, she recalls killing the two children and herself in a fit of madness when she learns Victor has died in battle.  Her “others” are actually future occupants with whom she now accepts as co-habitants of her home.

THE OTHERS (2018)

If Hollywood can bring back Jamie Lee Curtis in a new version of Halloween, maybe it is also time for a remake of The Others.  Except the location is not the Channel Island.  It is the United Stated of America.  And rather than a story told by a handful of actors, this version is an epic production with a cast of millions.  However, the basic story remains the same.  The players are haunted by fears there are demons lurking around every corner who are the antithesis of their vision of America.  Immigrants, socialists, Muslims, minority voters, and a dishonest press.  Their fears are daily affirmed by the nation’s current patriarch.

As did Grace, these residents take every safeguard to protect themselves from the others.  Ban some from entering the country.  Build a wall to deter others.  Erect barriers to keep them from voting.  And ostracize the media as “enemy of the people.”  Only then, do they believe, they will be safe.

But yesterday’s attempt to harm “the others” who share their space was the “seance” which for them, like Grace, should have been that moment of illumination.  The anarchy and vigilantism they predicted materialized.  But as in the 2001 original, the others were not some imagined boogeymen.

EPILOGUE

As I watched clips from Trump’s rallies in Montana, Texas and last night in Wisconsin, my eyes were drawn not to Trump but to his avid supporters behind the stage as he enumerated “the others” who represent a threat to some imagined ideal for lack of a better term I’ll call “the good old days.”  I could not help but wonder if any of them, in their search for “these others” realize, in the words of Walt Kelly’s alter-ego Pogo, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Once again, the media and the Democratic Party recently proved the counter-intuitive adage, “With enemies like this, who needs friends.” Consider the following.

Tennessee Senate Race 

On October 5, Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Tennessee Phil Bredesen announced, that if he were the incumbent, he would vote to confirm then Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.  Did Bredesen actually believe he could attract moderate Republican votes by taking what could only be described as a perverse #metoo (as in I’m also willing to sell my soul) stand on this issue.  His only hope of winning was by mobilizing the potential energy of women voters, especially suburban independents, who feel Trump and his local mouthpiece Republican candidate Marsha Blackburn do not represent their interests.

Did Bredesen not pay attention to the last attempt by Democrats to placate Republicans in hopes of building bipartisan support?  Did he fail to see what happened when Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer accepted Republican amendments to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in hopes of garnering a few votes from across the aisle?  How did that turn out?  The Democratic Party ended up having to defend a Rube Goldberg health care program created by the Heritage Foundation and then Republicans used ACA as a central issue against the Democrats in the 2010 mid-term elections.

When are Democrats going to wake up to a very convenient truth?  On social issues, the overwhelming majority of Americans are progressive.  They love Social Security and Medicare.  They think women have a right to control their own bodies.  They support a living wage.  They know climate change is real.  They do not equate money with freedom of expression.  No one wants a college education to mire graduates in years of debt.   Users do not want the internet to be controlled by a few service providers.  The Democratic party agrees shares those views.  So why won’t Democratic candidates own policies which the majority of Americans support, even in many so called red states?

It’s not like Bredesen didn’t have other things to tout.  For example, every time Democrats bring back the economy from the brink of disaster or begin to chip away at the deficit, Republicans use it as an excuse to finance massive tax cuts for their major donors.  Or does it really make sense to disrupt global agriculture markets with a trade war and then ask taxpayers to bail out the victims?  Hell, his home state of Tennessee is being hurt by European Union tariffs on Tennessee whiskey. Even when it comes to Kavanaugh’s confirmation, most Americans felt a more rigorous investigation of the assault accusations were in order.  All Bredesen had to say was, “When I’m in the Senate, regardless of the president’s political affiliation, I promise candidates for the Supreme Court will be fully vetted with public access to the information which now only members of the Senate are allowed to see.  I’d like to tell you how I’d vote on the Kavanaugh nomination, but like you, I’m kept from seeing the very information on which I would base my decision.”

Instead, Bredesen’s logic says, I’d rather play to people who will NEVER vote for me.  And now he’s probably lost the support of those who were looking for an alternative to Trump and his Republican lemmings.  According to Politico, “Campaign volunteers have been calling to cancel door-knocking and phone-banking shifts for Bredesen since his statement backing Kavanaugh, according to an internal spreadsheet maintained by the campaign.”  If the Democrats fall one short of retaking the Senate, there is NO question who is responsible.

Jamal Khashoggi

Not once this week has a single media outlet asked the question, “What is it about Turkey which makes it the go to place for dealing with political dissidents?  Not unexpectedly, the attention has been focused on the disappearance and likely murder of U.S. resident and Washington Post writer Jamal Khashoggi.  But how short of a memory could the press have to discount the fact this is the second incident in the last two years in which a U.S. resident was the target of abduction by a foreign government?  Did they forget former Trump national security advisor and confessed felon Michael Flynn was under investigation for aiding the Turkish government in kidnapping cleric Fethullah Gülen who the Erdogan government accused of plotting a coup in July 2016?

Nor has any newspaper, even the one that carried Khashoggi’s column, asked, “Why now?  Was Khashoggi working on a story which was of particular interest to the Saudi royal family?”  I have tried my best to avoid conspiracy theories, so I’ll use the pseudonym Tom Clancy.  Imagine, if prior to his death in 2014, Clancy wrote a Jack Ryan novel titled Prince of Ties.  It might have gone something like this.

In hopes of garnering support from the United States government, the Saudi royal family becomes a major financier of an American real estate developer who has fallen on hard times.  Their beneficiary, who has threatened on multiple occasions to run for president of the United States, finally throws his hat in the ring.  And to the surprise of many, including himself, wins with the help of foreign funding and possible intervention in the electoral process. 

As a result, the president makes Saudi Arabia and especially a charismatic heir to the throne the centerpiece of Middle East policy.  This results in arms sales to ensure the survival of the current Saudi regime and support of Saudi military actions in Qatar and Yemen which appear contrary to America’s global interests.

A Saudi dissident, living in the U.S. and writing for the Washington Post, has begun to document the financial ties between the president, the chief executive’s family business and Saudi Arabia.  To prevent the story from making headlines, the Saudi government devises a plan to capture and interrogate the journalist.  European intelligence agencies discover the plot and share the information with the CIA which chooses not to include it in the president’s daily intelligence briefing.  Jack Ryan, now serving as CIA deputy director, questions his boss’ decision to withhold the information and is stonewalled as he tries to make sense of the situation.

I am not suggesting the Trump administration has colluded with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to silence Khashoggi.  But the mere possibility has the makings of one great spy novel.  What I will suggest is the lack of transparency about Trump financial entanglements makes everything suspect whether it should be or not.  American voters should not have to guess whether there is a personal quid pro quo behind oval office decisions on U.S. foreign policy.

Hey, Phil Bredesen!  Maybe you should have thought about running on that instead of blind support for Brett Kavanaugh.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

I know the band Foreigner had no idea when they released “Cold As Ice” in 1977, they provided a more accurate description of Melania Trump than this weekend’s mainstream media suggestion Mrs. Trump has a conscience.

I’ve seen it before
It happens all the time
You’re closing the door
You leave the world behind
You’re digging for gold
Yet throwing away
A fortune in feelings
But someday you’ll pay.

In contrast, the Washington Post on Saturday reported, “Melania Trump weighs in on her husband’s cruel policy.”   The Corpus Christie Caller-Times suggested, “Melania Trump takes a brave stand against her husband’s policies.”  Cosmopolitan.com wrote, “Melania Trump and Laura Bush have openly criticized the U.S. government’s family separation policy.”

Brave stand?  As the Parkland students would say, “I call BS.” Let’s be honest, Melania Trump has personally SAID nothing.  Her office released a statement in which they claim she (in the third person) “hates to see children separated from their families.”  A dispassionate (cold as ice) statement which then parroted her husband’s claim others are responsible for the situation, forgetting this injustice she supposedly abhors was perpetrated by the cruel narcissus with whom she shares a residence.  Who drafted this statement?  Maybe it was the same person who dictated the now infamous explanation of the June 2016 meeting with Russians in Trump Tower?

The last time I checked Mrs. Trump is not a mute.  If she wanted to speak out against her husband’s policy, she would have been welcomed on any of the Sunday talk shows.  Or she could have submitted to an interview with any magazine or newspaper.

Nor did she follow Laura Bush’s example.  In an op-ed published in the Washington Post, the former First Lady, wrote in the first person.

I live in a border state. I appreciate the need to enforce and protect our international boundaries, but this zero-tolerance policy is cruel. It is immoral. And it breaks my heart.

Unlike her RNC convention speech, there is no chance FFLOTUS (faux first lady of the United States) plagiarized Michele Obama who seconded Laura Bush, tweeting, “Sometimes truth transcends party.”

Or Rosalynn Carter who tweeted, also in the first person.

When I was first lady, I worked to call attention to the plight of refugees fleeing Cambodia for Thailand.  I visited Thailand and witnessed firsthand the trauma of parents and children separated by circumstances beyond their control.  The practice and policy today of removing children from their parents’ care at our border with Mexico is disgraceful and a shame to our country.

And finally, Hillary Clinton shared a sentiment felt by many, as Melania’s ghostwriter said, “…on both sides of the aisle.”

What’s happening to families at the border right now is a humanitarian crisis. Every parent who has ever held a child in their arms, every human being with a sense of compassion and decency, should be outraged.

Suggesting Melania Trump is just one more voice in a chorus of first ladies who have actually spoken out against this atrocity is an insult.  A more apt comparison would be Princess Elsa of Arendelle who, in the Disney animated film Frozen, possessed cryokinetic powers and exiled herself to a fortress of ice.  The only remaining question is whether Mrs. Trump continues to be an accomplice in sustaining the moral winter which now blankets America.  If this is what she meant by “BE BEST,” I nostalgically prefer a time when Nancy Reagan told us, “JUST SAY NO!”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP